Feingerts v. D'Anna
237 So. 3d 21
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Maurice Feingerts's 1966 will created testamentary trusts for his three children, with Doris (the widow) having usufruct; trust termination occurred when each child turned 31. The will was probated but not recorded in conveyance records; a 1974 judgment of possession (recorded) recognized Doris as trustee/usufructuary and the children as remainder owners.
- By 2009 the trusts had terminated (all children >31), but Maurice's will (showing termination date) remained in the succession record; Doris listed and sold 5839 Bellaire Drive to D'Anna for $127,000, without Bruce's consent.
- Crescent Title performed title work; Bergeron (Crescent Title) opined—based on public record search—that Doris could sell without Bruce; the will (in succession file) was available and allegedly reviewed by title examiners.
- Bruce sued to assert his one-sixth ownership; D'Anna filed third-party claims against the Succession of Doris and the beneficiaries; Crescent Title was later sued by the Succession for negligent closing/indemnity after federal/bankruptcy proceedings rescinded the sale and awarded damages to D'Anna.
- The bankruptcy court found the trust had terminated before the sale and rescinded the sale, holding Crescent/Fidelity were on inquiry notice because Maurice's probated will showed termination; remanded third-party claims to state court.
- On remand the Succession moved for summary judgment against Crescent Title seeking indemnity; the state trial court granted summary judgment (later amended to provide transfer to Crescent Title upon satisfaction), and Crescent Title appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Succession's detrimental reliance claim is viable | Bergeron's assurance that Doris could sell without Bruce caused Doris to rely to her detriment; this supports detrimental reliance/indemnity | Crescent: no "promise" was made—only a legal opinion; therefore detrimental reliance fails as a matter of law | Court: labels (promise vs. opinion) immaterial; Doris relied on Bergeron's assertion; claim viable |
| Whether genuine issues of material fact exist as to Crescent Title's negligence in closing | Succession: Crescent breached duty to properly close by failing to verify termination despite having the will | Crescent: acted reasonably relying on recorded judgment of possession; no duty to search old succession records; will was not in conveyance record | Court: no genuine dispute—Crescent had the will and was on notice; breached obligation; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Succession's claim is perempted as legal malpractice under La. R.S. 9:5605 | Succession: claim is for negligent closing/breach of closing duties, not legal malpractice; no attorney-client relationship with Bergeron | Crescent: Bergeron's opinion sounds like legal malpractice; peremptive period applies and bars claim | Court: no attorney-client relationship shown; claim framed as breach of closing duties, not legal malpractice; peremption inapplicable |
| Whether La. R.S. 9:2029.1 (recordation of trust termination) affects 2009 sale | Succession: trust termination could be evidenced by the probated will in succession records; Crescent was on inquiry notice | Crescent: termination effects should require recordation in conveyance records (post-2015 statute) | Court: statute effective 2015 and not retroactive; prior law did not require recordation; nonetheless Crescent had constructive/actual notice via the will |
Key Cases Cited
- Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 45 So.3d 991 (La. 2010) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Schroeder v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, 591 So.2d 342 (La. 1991) (summary judgment criteria)
- Teague v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 974 So.2d 1266 (La. 2008) (attorney-client relationship required for malpractice)
- St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. GAB Robins N. Am., Inc., 999 So.2d 72 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2008) (objective/reasonable basis for attorney-client relationship)
- Wooley v. Lucksinger, 961 So.2d 1228 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2007) (detrimental reliance element discussion)
- Lirette v. Roe, 631 So.2d 503 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1994) (no attorney-client relationship absent initial communication)
- Louisiana State Bar Association v. Bosworth, 481 So.2d 567 (La. 1985) (attorney-client relationship factors)