153 So. 3d 567
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Duskin died in 2004; daughters probated his March 12, 2004 testament granting them ownership in the Mahalia Jackson Family Corporation.
- A 20% corporate interest (100 shares) passed to the daughters; judgment of possession awarded each daughter 10% of the corporation after corrections.
- Appellant Bishop Frank E. Lott pursued multiple petitions challenging the succession and the 1994 document; several petitions denied for nonconformity or lack of form.
- The trial court consolidated actions, held a hearing in 2013, and granted appellees’ motion to annul the 2007 order probating the 1994 Document, while sustaining some exceptions.
- Appellant’s later damages action (2012) was subject to exceptions of prescription and no right/no cause of action; the court ultimately annulled the 2007 probate order as to the 1994 Document.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1994 Document is a valid testament | J-Lott argues the document should be valid as a testament. | Daughters contend the 1994 Document fails formality requirements as a testament. | Not a valid testament; fails olographic and notarial formality. |
| Whether the 1994 Document can stand as a contract | Lott contends it is a unilateral, gratuitous contract benefiting him. | Daughters argue the document does not meet contract formalities; cannot transfer rights. | Fails as a contract; cannot confer a legal interest. |
| Whether appellant has standing/no right of action | Lott asserts a justiciable interest via the 1994 Document. | Daughters argue no legal interest since document invalid. | No right of action; appellant lacks a legal interest in the succession. |
| Whether the trial court properly granted the motion to annul | Annulment preserves applicant’s intent shown in the 1994 Document. | Annulment appropriate because document invalid; cannot give effect to null document. | Reasonable to grant annulment of the 2007 probate order. |
| Effect of videotape evidence and timing of execution | Videotape should be admitted to prove signing. | Videotape not applicable to 1994 Document; Article 2904 not retroactive. | Video evidence not admissible; not controlling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weber v. Metro. Cmty. Hospice Found., Inc., 131 So.3d 371 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2013) (no right of action analysis; standing requirement under Art. 681)
- In re Succession of Vickers, 891 So.2d 98 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2004) (standing/interest required to pursue succession-related relief)
- Meltzer v. Meltzer, 662 So.2d 58 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1995) (authentic act requirements; timing of signatures)
- Rittiner v. Sinclair, 374 So.2d 680 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1978) (authentic act execution and signatories)