Succession of Cladie J. Wade
2024-C-00635
La.Mar 21, 2025Background
- Cladie J. Wade died testate in 2011, with a 2007 will and a 2009 codicil addressing the distribution of her estate, notably a rental property in Oakland, California that she never owned.
- The 2007 will set a conditional legacy: if Alma Rea Wade did not sell the California property and divide proceeds with Carl Wade as instructed, Alma’s bequests would be revoked in Carl’s favor.
- The 2009 codicil reaffirmed the 2007 will, adding provisions about rental income and ownership if the property wasn’t sold, yet the property was not actually owned by Cladie but rather by Alma.
- Alma challenged the validity of the conditional legacy, arguing it was contrary to law or morals; Carl argued it was a valid conditional bequest.
- Trial court initially upheld the will’s condition; court of appeal reversed, finding it void because the decedent didn’t own the property. The Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the 2009 codicil’s conditional legacy valid? | Alma: Codicil imposes an invalid bequest as Cladie didn’t own the property. | Carl: The codicil reflects clear testamentary intent and should stand. | Codicil’s bequests regarding the property are invalid; decedent could not bequeath property she didn’t own. |
| Did the 2009 codicil revoke the 2007 will’s conditional legacy? | Alma: The codicil revoked the 2007 will’s condition and should control. | Carl: Codicil explicitly keeps the 2007 will “as is”; intent to maintain prior condition. | Codicil did not revoke the 2007 will’s conditional legacy; will remains operative. |
| Is the conditional legacy in the 2007 will valid? | Alma: Condition to sell/distribute proceeds is illegal, contrary to law and morals. | Carl: Condition is permitted; clear intent, not repugnant to law or morals. | Conditional legacy in the will is valid and enforceable. |
| Can Cladie enforce a condition on inheritance based on the sale of property she did not own? | Alma: Cannot condition inheritance on sale/division of property not owned by testator. | Carl: Condition is about inheritance, not direct control of property ownership. | Condition is permissible; testator not attempting to bequeath property, only imposing condition on inheritance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Succession of Walters, 259 So. 2d 12 (La. 1972) (invalidity of part of a will does not invalidate it in whole)
- Baten v. Taylor, 386 So.2d 333 (La. 1979) (conditional legacy not contrary to law upheld)
- Succession of Ruxton, 78 So.2d 183 (La. 1955) (conditional legacy valid absent contrary law or morals)
- Succession of Marion, 112 So. 667 (La. 1927) (cannot bequeath what one does not own)
- Succession of Feitel, 146 So. 145 (La. 1933) (posthumous control over property use is invalid)
- Succession of Wagner, 431 So.2d 10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1983) (conditional bequest valid where it does not deprive forced heirs)