Succession of Willie Hickman, Jr. ., 359 So.3d 584

Decedent Willie Hickman Jr. executed a will on November 7, 2013; his second wife, Sandra Hickman, was named independent executrix.
Sandra filed to probate the will in October 2018; the court appointed her independent executrix.
Decedent’s daughter Debbie filed a motion to annul (February 2019), alleging Decedent lacked testamentary capacity due to dementia/Alzheimer’s; Debbie relied on later medical records and her affidavit.
Sandra moved for summary judgment (Oct. 2021), submitting the will and attesting witness affidavits; Debbie opposed, saying key pre-2014 Ochsner medical records were needed and had been subpoenaed (Dec. 2021).
The district court granted summary judgment (Jan. 24, 2022), finding Debbie had not produced clear and convincing evidence of incapacity and that she delayed discovery; the court denied a new trial.
The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding the trial court abused its discretion by ruling before allowing adequate discovery (notably the return of the Ochsner subpoena), given COVID, counsel changes, and the centrality of the records to the capacity issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment before adequate discovery	Debbie: needed pre-2013 medical records (Ochsner) crucial to prove lack of testamentary capacity; subpoena served and discovery pending	Sandra: litigation had been pending for years; Debbie waited too late to seek records; court may grant SJ prior to complete discovery	Reversed — court abused discretion; Roadrunner factors show discovery was not adequately completed and SJ was premature; matter remanded
Whether the denial of a new trial was erroneous because of newly discovered Ochsner records	Debbie: newly-obtained medical records would show dementia and justify a new trial	Sandra: trial court properly denied as Debbie delayed and failed to show entitlement	Considered as part of appeal of final judgment; because discovery was inadequate, denial cannot stand in isolation — remanded for further proceedings
Whether the court should have considered Dr. Behar’s affidavits under Article 1973 instead of excluding them	Debbie: affidavits should be considered as evidence of incapacity	Sandra: trial court acted within discretion in its evidentiary rulings (not fully developed in opinion)	Opinion does not resolve this as a separate dispositive ruling; remand requires further proceedings during which such evidence can be addressed

Francois v. Ports Am. Louisiana, L.L.C., 314 So.3d 894 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2021) (summary judgment review standard and discovery under La. C.C.P. art. 966)
Roadrunner Transportation Sys. v. Brown, 219 So.3d 1265 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2017) (trial court discretion to hear SJ vs. grant continuance; factors for inadequate-discovery claims)
Simoneaux v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 483 So.2d 908 (La. 1986) (continuance to allow discovery may be required before ruling on SJ)
Leake & Andersson, LLP v. SIA Insurance Co., 868 So.2d 967 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2004) (SJ premature when requested information directly addresses the factual issue)
Bass P’ship v. Fortmayer, 899 So.2d 68 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2005) (SJ may be premature even after lengthy pendency if essential discovery remains)
Rivarde v. City of New Orleans, 190 So.3d 400 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2016) (abuse-of-discretion standard for decision to hear SJ or grant continuance)