Succession of LeBouef, 153 So. 3d 527

Decedent Edward J. LeBouef died in 2011; three children (Naquin, Billiot, LeBouef) were appointed co-administrators by August 19, 2011 order to maintain the house and gather an inventory. Each swore an oath.
Seven siblings moved to remove the co-administrators, alleging mismanagement: no filed accounting, sales/distributions of succession assets, payments to themselves, and withholding of the will — acts requiring court approval.
At hearing the co-administrators admitted performing acts beyond the limited appointment and failing to file an inventory; they testified they relied on advice from retained counsel.
The district court removed the co-administrators, appointed Willard LeBouef Sr. as administrator, removed the succession attorney, and held the co-administrators in contempt, imposing suspended 30-day jail terms and conditions.
On appeal the court (en banc) addressed: (1) whether judgments removing succession administrators are appealable; (2) whether removal was warranted; (3) whether contempt was proven. The appellate court denied summary dismissal, converted the appeal from suspensive to devolutive, affirmed removal, reversed contempt, and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appealability of order removing succession representative	Graves: such orders are nonappealable interlocutory and reviewable only by supervisory writ	Defendants: appeal permitted under La. C.C.P. arts. 2122 & 2974; appeal favored	Court: Articles 2122 and 2974 expressly contemplate appeals; Graves overruled; appeal maintained but is devolutive (not suspensive)
Removal of co-administrators for breach of duties	Plaintiffs: defendants mismanaged succession, sold/distributed assets and paid themselves without court approval, failed to file list/accounting — grounds under art. 3182/3191	Defendants: acted in good faith, relied on counsel, no proof of mismanagement	Court: removal affirmed — defendants breached statutory duties (sales, distributions, payments, misuse of bank account) and court did not abuse discretion in removing them
Contempt for willful disobedience of August 19, 2011 order	Plaintiffs: defendants wilfully disobeyed court order and oath by acting without approval	Defendants: actions were taken on attorney advice and in ignorance; contempt requires intentional, knowing, unjustified disobedience; district court failed to recite facts per art. 225(B)	Court: reversal — record shows defendants may have acted in good faith and on counsel advice; contempt not proven (district court failed to recite facts; constructive contempt requires intentional, knowing disobedience)

Succession of Schneider v. Schneider, 371 So.2d 1380 (La. Ct. App. 1979) (interpreting arts. 2122/2974 to permit appeals from judgments appointing/removing representatives)
In re Succession of Graves, 985 So.2d 140 (La. Ct. App. 2008) (per curiam) (held such judgments not appealable; overruled here)
Succession of Heinig, 188 So. 39 (La. 1939) (historical treatment of provisional execution of appointment/removal judgments)
Castillo v. Russell, 920 So.2d 863 (La. 2006) (appellate review favored; appeals generally maintained unless dismissal grounds are clear)
Miller v. Miller, 817 So.2d 1166 (La. Ct. App. 2002) (discussing provisional execution of removal judgments and appeal consequences)
Boudreaux v. Vankerkhove, 993 So.2d 725 (La. Ct. App. 2008) (standard for constructive contempt: intentional, knowing, without justification)
Albritton v. Fidelity Nat’l Bank Trust, 619 So.2d 1170 (La. Ct. App. 1993) (contempt disfavored; absent willful disobedience of direct order, contempt should not be found)