253 So. 3d 836
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Fred L. Houston (decedent) created an inter vivos trust in 2005 and named Hanh Williams trustee; Williams also had power of attorney and later served as independent executrix of Houston's estate after his 2008 death. Most assets were in the Trust; Williams had a contract term providing trustee compensation tied to certain revenues.
- Armand Roos was later confirmed as Dative Independent Executor and sued Williams (original petition 2011) alleging breaches of fiduciary duty as trustee and executrix, including self-dealing (sale/transfer of a DeSoto Parish mineral interest), failure to render proper accountings, and wrongful distributions.
- At jury trial (Oct–Nov 2016) the jury found Williams liable: $1.1 million to the Trust and $460,605 to the Estate; verdict 9–3. Trial court denied JNOV and new trial motions; Williams appealed.
- Trial evidence included Williams’s contemporaneous time/expense logs, testimony about a mineral-interest transaction (involving George Olsen and a transfer later declared a nullity in separate DeSoto Parish litigation), forensic accounting, and testimony about Williams’s relationships with elderly clients used to show a pattern.
- The trial court admitted Roos (an attorney and the executor) to testify on his own behalf, allowed limited testimony about Williams’s other clients as pattern evidence, rejected Williams’s prescription defense for trust claims, and found executor/attorney fees reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Roos could represent himself and testify without mistrial | Roos was permitted to represent the estate and testify about his actions; his testimony was necessary | Williams argued Roos’s dual role and certain courtroom handshakes deprived her of a fair trial and warranted mistrial | Court allowed self-representation and testimony; denied mistrial (no clear abuse of discretion) |
| Whether interruptions/delays prejudiced Williams | Trial scheduling and holidays caused unfair start-stop proceedings that impaired defense | Court and plaintiff argued delays were due to holidays and did not prejudice the defense; plaintiff’s case presented before delays | No abuse of discretion; interruption schedule not prejudicial |
| Admissibility of testimony about Williams’s other clients and acts (La. C.E. art. 404) | Roos introduced prior acts to show a pattern/plan and absence of mistake in dealing with elderly clients | Williams argued such evidence was improper character evidence and prejudicial | Evidence admitted as proper under art. 404(B) to show pattern/intent; no reversible error |
| Whether Trust claims prescribed under La. R.S. 9:2234/9:2088 | Williams argued trustee claims were barred because required accountings were rendered earlier, triggering peremptive periods | Roos showed no evidence of written/mailed annual accountings to beneficiary; testimony of discussions insufficient | Court held prescription had not run—statute requires written/mailed accountings and those were not shown to have been delivered |
Key Cases Cited
- Dixon v. Shuford, 671 So.2d 1213 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1996) (recognizes right of self-representation in Louisiana civil cases)
- Farrington v. Law Firm of Sessions, Fishman, 687 So.2d 997 (La. 1997) (Rule 3.7 does not bar a lawyer from acting as advocate when representing himself)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (appellate standard — manifest error/clearly wrong review of factfinder credibility findings)
- Succession of Jenkins, 481 So.2d 607 (La. 1986) (executor may obtain counsel and succession may pay reasonable legal fees)
- Atkins v. Roberts, 561 So.2d 837 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1990) (permitting succession to be charged for legal representation obtained by executor)