In re Campbell
| Decision Date | 02 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | 19-91 |
| Citation | 280 So.3d 979 |
| Parties | SUCCESSION OF Billy Dean CAMPBELL |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
C. Brent Coreil, Attorney at Law, Post Office Drawer 450, Ville Platte, LA 70586, (337) 363-5596, COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Jeremy Campbell, Tara Lafleur, Damian Campbell
Marcus L. Fontenot, Christopher Ludeau, Fontenot & Ludeau, LLC, Post Office Drawer 780, Ville Platte, LA 70586, (337) 363-3438, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: LB Johnson Properties, LLC, LBJ Properties, LLC
Chad B. Guidry, Attorney at Law, Post Office Box 447, Kinder, LA 70648, (337) 738-2280, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Amanda J. Campbell
Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, D. Kent Savoie, and Candyce G. Perret, Judges.
The decedent's three children from his first marriage appeal two judgments rendered by the trial court regarding their motions to appoint an executor and to traverse the detailed descriptive list filed by their father's surviving spouse. For the reasons discussed herein, we reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand this matter to the trial court with instructions.
Billy Dean Campbell died on June 2, 2016, after a battle with cancer
. He had three children during his first marriage: Jeremy Campbell, Tara LaFleur, and Damian Campbell. After his first marriage ended, Billy had one child, John, with Amanda Johnson Campbell whom he subsequently married on December 30, 2009. On April 27, 2017, Amanda filed a number of pleadings, including a petition for probate of Billy's last will and testament, his will, and a detailed descriptive list. The petition requested that Amanda be placed in possession of the legacies Billy made to her in his will and that Billy's children as his "heirs/legatees" "show cause why a judgment of possession should not be rendered sending them and the surviving spouse into possession of [their legacies] in accordance with his will." The trial court probated the will but did not sign the order for Billy's children to show cause why a judgment of possession should not be rendered. Thereafter, on May 12, 2017, Amanda filed a petition for possession of unadministered testate succession by surviving spouse and a corresponding judgment of possession. The petition did not include a request for Billy's legatees to be ordered to show cause why the judgment should not be granted. On May 15, 2017, the trial court signed the judgment of possession.
Jeremy filed a motion to have the judgment vacated because: (1) Billy's will designated him and Amanda as co-executors of the Estate; (2) no inventory was conducted as indicated in Amanda's petition; (3) the legatees did not accept the estate as required by La.Code Civ.P. art. 3031 ; and (4) Amanda did not give him notice of the filing as her attorney had previously agreed with his attorney. After a hearing, the trial court annulled and vacated the "Judgment of Possession of Un-Administered Testate Succession by Surviving Spouse."
Thereafter, Jeremy filed a motion to be appointed independent executor, asserting that Amanda had "administered the assets of the estate and continues to operate business of the estate known as Campbell's Trailer Park, L.L.C., without the authority of being named as an Independent Executrix and without [c]ourt authority." Jeremy also filed a motion to traverse in which he asserted that Amanda's detailed descriptive list contained numerous errors with regard to assets and three debts identified as being owned and/or owed by the Estate.
Amanda filed an answer and reconventional demand opposing Jeremy's motion to be appointed independent executor and requesting that she "be placed into possession of (only) her bequest without the need for administration." If the trial court held that an administration was necessary, she sought to be named the sole independent executor, or alternatively, to be named co-independent executor with Jeremy.
Amanda's detailed descriptive list included four debts. On July 20, 2017, after the trial court vacated and annulled the judgment of possession, two of the creditors listed in the detailed descriptive list, LB Johnson Properties, LLC and LBJ Properties, LLC, filed proofs of claim. Larry B. Johnson, Amanda's father, filed the two proofs of claim on behalf of these two companies.
Over the course of three days in April, May, and July 2018, the trial court held hearings on the issues raised in Jeremy and Amanda's motions regarding administration of the Estate, the appointment of an executor, and traversal of the detailed descriptive list. On September 11, 2018, the trial court signed a judgment that recognized the three debts challenged in Jeremy's motion to traverse as valid and enforceable against the Estate and ordered that they "be paid from the funds of the [E]state." The judgment also ordered that the proceeds derived from a sale of cattle made by Amanda be disbursed one-third to his four children, jointly, and one-third each to Amanda and Mr. Johnson, individually. The judgment denied Jeremy's requests for an administration of the succession and the appointment of an independent executor. The judgment then recognized Amanda as Billy's surviving spouse and legatee and 100% owner of the family home, owner of one-half of all remaining community property of the Estate and the usufructuary of the other remaining one-half of said community property, until she dies or remarries; it also placed her in possession of said property. The judgment also recognized Billy's children "as his sole heirs and residual legatees" and as:
Jeremy filed a motion for suspensive appeal. Mr. Johnson sought to have the appeal dismissed for Jeremy's failure to timely file the motion for appeal and pay court costs. Jeremy's siblings, Tara and Damian, then joined him in his appeal. (Jeremy, Tara, and Damian are hereafter referred to as "the Heirs.") The Heirs opposed the motion and filed a peremptory exception of prescription in which they argued that Mr. Johnson's businesses' claims were prescribed. After a hearing, the trial court held that the Heirs' suspensive appeal would be maintained if they paid the appeal costs it set; otherwise, it would be converted to a devolutive appeal. The trial court denied the Heirs' exception of prescription. The Heirs posted the appeal costs and proceeded with their suspensive appeal.
The Heirs now assign the following five errors with the trial court's judgment:
Our determination of the merits of the last four assignments of error may impact our findings with regard to the first assignment of error. Accordingly, we review these assignments first.
The three debts listed in Amanda's detailed descriptive list that the Heirs have challenged are two debts awarded against the Estate in favor of Mr. Johnson's two businesses, LB Johnson Properties, LLC and LBJ Properties, LLC, in the amount of $132,500.00 and $79,051.62, and a debt awarded in favor of the Amanda L. Johnson's Children's 2009 Trust in the amount of $35,000.00.
For ease of discussion herein, we reference LB Johnson Properties, LLC's and LBJ Properties, LLC's claims as being asserted by Mr. Johnson, noting that Mr. Johnson testified that he set up these corporations at the instruction of his accountant to keep the operation of his various businesses separate for accounting purposes. In doing so, we are mindful that the Heirs argue the trial court erred in awarding judgment to these two entities because discrepancies exist between the creditor-debt associations identified in the detailed descriptive list and the evidence presented at trial, e.g., the creditor for the debt on the promissory note identified in the detailed descriptive list is LBJ Properties, LLC, not LB Johnson Properties, LLC, the creditor who sought to prove the debt at trial. For reasons discussed below, we need not address this issue at this time.
The Heirs argue that parol evidence cannot be used to prove claims against a decedent's estate except under specific conditions and that when parol evidence is admissible, the claims cannot be proved by the parol evidence of someone who has a pecuniary interest in the claim.
The Dead Man Statute governs the proof claims against a decedent's estate. La.R.S. 13:3721 -3722. The purpose of this statute "is to prevent stale and unfounded claims from being filed against the succession which could have been refuted by the deceased had he been alive." Succession of Otts , 400 So.2d 1175, 1177 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1981) (citing Succession of De Loach, 204 La. 805, 16 So.2d 361 (1943) ; Taylor v. Bocock , 276 So.2d 347 (La.App. 2 Cir.), writ denied , 279 So.2d 205 (La.1973) ).
Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:3721 (emphasis added) provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estrada v. Hulin
... ... The party pleading the peremptory exception of prescription bears the burden of proof. However, where the [creditor's] cause of action is prescribed on the face of the petition, the [creditor] bears the burden of rebutting the plea of prescription ... Succession of Campbell, 19-91, pp. 8-9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/2/19), 280 So.3d 979, 986.Appellant's Assignments of Error Numbers One and Two involve the trial court's determination of whether the primary obligation was the oral loan of money or the "Promissory Note." Appellant argues that the "Promissory Note" was, in fact, ... ...
- Khalaf v. Mass Res., Inc.