202 So. 3d 1147
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Decedent Vic Reno died in November 2012; his son James B. “Jimmy” Reno was appointed administrator and later full administrator. Multiple wills (2007, 2008, 2011) and 2009 inter vivos transfers to grandson Joshua prompted competing probate and annulment actions.
- Jimmy filed petitions seeking authority to pay succession debts via tableaus of distribution; eight prior tableaus were approved. The 9th–12th tableaus sought $96,871.36 (including ~$57,900 attorney fees and ~$29,600 expert/medical fees) and were opposed by surviving spouse Dorothy Reno (Mrs. Reno).
- Mrs. Reno argued Jimmy improperly used estate funds to challenge the 2011 will and the 2009 donations (actions that could personally benefit Jimmy), and that no detailed descriptive list (inventory) had been filed so solvency could not be assessed.
- At a hearing, Jimmy’s counsel (Shockey) testified as to categories of legal work and expert fees (including a psychological autopsy by Dr. LeBourgeois) and some accounting/valuation work. The district court approved homologation of the 9th–12th tableaus and authorized payment from estate funds; Mrs. Reno appealed.
- The appellate court held (majority): approving tableaus without a filed detailed descriptive list was not an abuse of discretion, but reversed authorization to pay attorney fees and Dr. LeBourgeois’s expert fees (fees used to challenge the 2011 will and 2009 donations), affirmed payment of limited accounting, tax, bond premium, and business-valuation fees, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reno) | Defendant's Argument (Jimmy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether homologation of tableaus may occur without a detailed descriptive list | Homologation without a descriptive list prevents assessment of estate solvency and risks depleting the estate | Court may approve payment if there is proof of cash on hand; no statutory prerequisite that list be filed first | Court: No statutory requirement; district court did not abuse discretion in approving payments absent the list (assignment denied) |
| Whether estate may pay attorney fees for litigation challenging the 2011 will and 2009 donations | Fees were incurred to benefit Jimmy personally (he is a legatee under a prior will) and thus not proper estate debts | Attorney fees were incurred in administrator’s duties (asset identification, recovery actions) and Shockey’s uncontroverted testimony detailed fees as estate-benefiting | Court: Reversed authorization to pay attorney fees — fees to challenge the 2011 will/2009 donations were for Jimmy’s personal benefit and not estate debts |
| Whether estate may pay expert (medical) fees for a psychological autopsy used to attack testamentary capacity | Such expert fees funded a will-capacity attack benefiting Jimmy personally and thus are not chargeable to the estate | Fees were part of assessing decedent capacity and recovering assets for the estate | Court: Reversed authorization to pay Dr. LeBourgeois’s expert fees (used to challenge capacity) |
| Whether other administrative expenses (accounting, valuation, bond premium, property taxes) are estate debts | These may be challenged as unnecessary or improperly classified without clearer proof | Some accounting and valuation work was reasonably tied to preserving/identifying estate assets | Court: Affirmed limited authorization for accounting services, property tax, bond premium, and business valuation fees; other expenses remanded for clearer allocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Succession of Moore, 696 So.2d 1040 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1997) (distinguishes inventory vs. descriptive list and procedure)
- Succession of Willis v. Martin, 228 So.2d 732 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1969) (purpose of detailed descriptive list to inform interested parties)
- Succession of Daste, 223 So.2d 848 (La. 1969) (executor’s attorney fees can be estate debts when for winding up the succession)
- Succession of Kilpatrick, 422 So.2d 483 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1982) (limits attorney fees prior to will-contest resolution to those preserving the estate)
- Succession of Sporl, 900 So.2d 1054 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2005) (executor must substantiate that legal fees are estate debts; insufficient proof defeats authorization)
- Succession of Bradford, 130 So.2d 702 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1961) (legal expenses defending a will are proper succession charges)
- In re Succession of Holbrook, 144 So.3d 845 (La. 2014) (presumption of testamentary validity)
- In re Succession of Theriot, 4 So.3d 878 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2008) (presumption of testamentary capacity)
- Atkins v. Roberts, 561 So.2d 837 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1990) (costs of defending a will typically chargeable to the succession)
- Succession of Larmore, 518 So.2d 1085 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1987) (fiduciary duties restrict conflicts of interest for administrators)