180 So. 3d 355
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Fannie and Vincent Cannata died testate (2002 and 2006). Their three children (Joan Ann, Guy, Vincent) became involved in prolonged litigation over the successions. Guy was initially appointed successor independent administrator of Fannie's succession; later a court-appointed administrator replaced the siblings.
- Guy opened Vincent’s succession in St. Mary Parish; opponents later alleged Vincent changed domicile to Orleans Parish before death and sued to challenge venue and related actions.
- The trial court consolidated the two successions and related promissory-note litigation, found Vincent domiciled in St. Mary Parish at death, approved compromises, a tableau of distribution, sale of corporate stock, payment of administrator/mediator fees, homologated the final account, and rendered a judgment of possession.
- Guy appealed numerous rulings and filed an exception claiming lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Vincent’s domicile was in Orleans Parish.
- The court vacated the May 11, 2007 judgment that removed and replaced the sibling administrators for failing to afford the required rule to show cause/contradictory hearing, but held that the actions taken by the court-appointed administrator remain valid under appellate-law protections. All other judgments and orders were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Guy's Argument | Opposing Argument (Administrator/Co-heirs) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction (domicile) | Vincent changed domicile to Orleans Parish before death; therefore St. Mary court lacked jurisdiction | Vincent remained domiciled in St. Mary Parish; presumption of continuing domicile; many indicia tied to St. Mary | Court: affirmed St. Mary domicile; Guy failed to overcome presumption |
| Consolidation of successions | Consolidation improper because not all succession reps joined motion | Consolidation permissible where common issues predominate; one rep may act to avoid deadlock | Court: consolidation proper; no abuse of discretion |
| Removal/replacement of succession representatives | Trial court lacked procedure (no rule to show cause/contradictory hearing) | Court acted sua sponte to remedy administration impasse | Court: removal order vacated for procedural defect; but administrator’s acts remain valid under art. 2122 principles |
| Administrator's bond amount | Bond set too low ($13,000) given assets | Bond reduction was unopposed in 2008; administrator had malpractice coverage; court has discretion | Court: bond amount sustained; no abuse of discretion |
| Promissory-note compromise & discovery | Denied discovery; compromise and fee award improper | Compromise and fee judgments became final and unappealed | Court: promissory-note compromise and fee awards final; not reviewable here |
| Tableau of distribution priorities (legacy to Guy) | Legacy to Guy should share prorata priority with Vincent’s $100,000 legacy | Will indicates universal residue to children "subject to" special legacy to Guy — i.e., Guy’s legacy carved from residue after other legacies | Court: tableau’s priority upheld; interpretation followed testator’s intent |
| Sale of preferred stock (Cannata Corp.) | Sale unnecessary (Mrs. Cannata’s estate solvent); administrator failed to prove corporate board authorization | Sale was to facilitate orderly liquidation; statutory procedure followed; purchaser authority not required to be proved | Court: sale authorized; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Fees to administrator/mediator & homologation of final account | Procedure for approving fees defective; final account differed from earlier filing; exclusion of witness testimony | Parties had notice; objections not timely; testimony proffered would be irrelevant or cumulative | Court: fees and final account homologation upheld; exclusion of testimony not an abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Russell v. Goldsby, 780 So.2d 1048 (La. 2000) (burden and proof required to show change of domicile)
- Landiak v. Richmond, 899 So.2d 535 (La. 2005) (factors for determining domicile and weighing evidence)
- Stobart v. State, Dep’t of Transportation & Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (standard of review for factual findings)
- Succession of Koch, 379 So.2d 1080 (La. 1980) (procedural requirements to remove a succession representative)
- Succession of Taglialavore, 500 So.2d 393 (La. 1987) (discretionary approval of sale of succession property to serve best interests)
- Succession of Caprito, 468 So.2d 561 (La. 1985) (venue requirement for succession proceedings)
- Succession of Quaglino, 65 So.2d 127 (La. 1953) (final account homologation and effect of closing succession)