In re Reno
| Decision Date | 12 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2015 CA 0854,2015 CA 0854 |
| Citation | 202 So.3d 1147 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Succession of Vic Reno |
202 So.3d 1147
In the Matter of the Succession of Vic Reno
NO. 2015 CA 0854
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
September 12, 2016
Rehearing Denied November 1, 2016
William C. Shockey, Bradley C. Stidham, Baton Rouge, LA, Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee, James B. Reno
Mark D. Plaisance, Thibodaux, LA, Attorney for Defendant-Appellant, Dorothy L. Reno
BEFORE: PETTIGREW, WELCH, HIGGINBOTHAM, CRAIN, AND HOLDRIDGE JJ.
HIGGINBOTHAM, J.
In this succession proceeding, appellant, Dorothy Reno (Mrs. Reno), the surviving spouse of the decedent, Vic Reno (Mr. Reno), appeals four judgments by the district court, each dated March 2, 2015. The judgments ordered the homologation of the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth tableaus of distribution submitted by the administrator of the succession, Mr. Reno's son, appellee, James B. Reno (Jimmy), authorizing him to pay the debts and charges submitted as succession debts, from the succession's bank account.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 25, 2012, Mr. Reno died. Two months following the death of Mr. Reno, Jimmy petitioned the court to be appointed as provisional administrator of the estate. His petition was granted by the district court on February 6, 2013. Thereafter, Jimmy filed a petition for appointment as full administrator and was appointed full administrator by order of the court on March 5, 2013.1
In conjunction with those proceedings, Jimmy claimed the existence of a last will and testament executed by Mr. Reno, dated December 7, 2007, in which he was a named legatee (hereafter referred to as the 2007 will). He further alleged that he anticipated members of the Reno family would challenge another will signed by Mr. Reno in 2011, on the grounds of incapacity of Mr. Reno and undue influence on the part of Mr. Reno's grandson, Joshua K. Fontenot (Joshua). Following Jimmy's appointment as administrator, and this court's June 2015 opinion affirming that appointment, Jimmy proceeded to administer the estate.
Representing that he was acting in his capacity as administrator of the succession, Jimmy filed a petition to annul 2009 inter vivos property transfers made to Joshua through a trust in which Mr. Reno and Mrs. Reno were co-trustees (hereafter referred to as the 2009 inter vivos donations). In his petition, Jimmy alleged that the purported sales were disguised donations, and that at the time of the transfers, Mr. Reno's mental capacity had declined, making him vulnerable to manipulation by Joshua.
On July 8, 2013, Mrs. Reno filed a petition to probate Mr. Reno's purported last will, executed on July 7, 2011 (hereafter referred to as the 2011 will). The 2011 will granted the naked ownership of Mr. Reno's entire estate to his grandson, Joshua, and a usufruct of that estate to Mrs. Reno. In the 2011 will, Mr. Reno revoked all prior wills and named the expenses that should be paid as administrative expenses of his succession, including legal fees and court costs associated with administering or defending the 2011 will. The 2011 will did not name an executor.
On October 30, 2013, Jimmy filed a petition to probate the 2007 will. Joshua opposed probate of the 2007 will and requested that the 2011 will be probated. In the alternative, Joshua requested that a third
will signed on March 13, 2008 (hereafter referred to as the 2008 will), be probated if the 2011 will was found invalid.2 At this juncture, none of the wills have been probated.
During the pendency of these proceedings, in his capacity as administrator, Jimmy filed eight petitions seeking authority to pay succession debts and expenses, and tableaus of distribution for homologation, all eight of which were granted and not appealed. At issue in this appeal are the subsequently filed petitions and tableaus of distribution that were opposed: the ninth, filed on June 3, 2014; the tenth, filed on July 31, 2014; the eleventh, filed on October 10, 2014, and the twelfth, filed on December 30, 2014. Altogether, in the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth petitions Jimmy sought authority to pay $96,871.36 in expenses and charges, which included $57,926.51 in attorney fees, $29,587.50 in medical expert witness fees, $7,885.00 in fees for accounting and business valuation, $1,419.72 for the administrative bond premium, and $52.63 for a property tax.
Mrs. Reno opposed the four petitions and tableaus of distribution, because she contended that Jimmy has used and continues to use estate assets to fund his challenge to the 2011 will, when the administrator's duty is to preserve and protect the estate. Mrs. Reno also maintained that much of the funds Jimmy seeks reimbursement for are for the benefit of him personally rather than for the benefit of the estate.3
A hearing on the four petitions was held on February 23, 2015, during which counsel for Jimmy, Mr. William C. Shockey (Mr. Shockey), testified concerning the legal services rendered to Jimmy as administrator of the estate. Additionally, Mr. Shockey testified regarding the other expenses and charges Jimmy sought authority to pay as succession debts. Mr. Shockey discussed a breakdown of services that he had provided for Jimmy, including services for: 1) general administration; 2) identification and collection of assets; 3) legal action to recover assets that were donated inter vivos ; 4) legal action to oppose the probate of the 2011 will; 5) legal action for accounting against Joshua pursuant to a power of attorney; and 6) defending all efforts made in the past to remove Jimmy as administrator.
Mr. Shockey testified that the medical expert fees Jimmy sought authority to pay were incurred by hiring Dr. Herbert W. LeBourgeois, who performed a psychological autopsy in order to challenge the capacity of Mr. Reno in 2011, when he executed the 2011 will, and in 2009 when he made the 2009 inter vivos donations to Joshua. Mr. Shockey also testified that Jimmy hired accountants to perform business valuation services, to determine Mr. Reno's interest in a business, and to review Mr. Reno's tax returns.
After the hearing, on March 2, 2015, the district court rendered four separate judgments homologating the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth tableaus of distribution and authorizing Jimmy to pay the debts and charges listed therein from the succession account. This appeal by Mrs. Reno followed. She sets forth two assignments of error:
1. A detailed descriptive list allows the court to determine whether the estate has sufficient funds to pay debts and charges. Because the administrator James B. Reno [Jimmy] has failed to file a detailed descriptive list, the trial court committed manifest error in approving the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth tableaus of homologation based solely on the assertion that the estate has “cash on hand” to satisfy current debts.
2. Although an administrator can expend estate funds to preserve and protect succession property, including the defense of the testament, the administrator cannot use succession funds to benefit himself or take action adverse to the interest of the estate. Because [Jimmy] has used, and continues to use estate funds to challenge the testator's capacity to execute the testament he is appointed to protect, the trial court committed manifest error in approving the payment of his incurred attorney fees.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR # 1 DETAILED DESCRIPTIVE LIST
Mrs. Reno argues that Jimmy's failure to file a detailed descriptive list prevents the court from knowing whether the estate is solvent or able to sustain the extent of attorney fees and expenses incurred. According to the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, a detailed descriptive list indexes all succession property while a tableau of distribution lists succession debts. See La. Code Civ. P. arts. 3136 and 3303 ; Succession of Moore, 96–1268 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/20/97), 696 So.2d 1040, 1042.
The filing of a detailed descriptive list in lieu of an estate inventory is authorized by Article 3136, which provides:
Whenever an inventory of succession property otherwise would be required by law, the person at whose instance the inventory would be taken may file with the Department of Revenue and in the succession proceeding, in lieu of an inventory complying with articles 3131 through 3135, a detailed, descriptive list of all succession property. This list shall be sworn to and subscribed by the person filing it, shall show the location of all items of succession property, and shall set forth the fair market value of each item thereof at the date of the death of the deceased.
The privilege of filing a descriptive list of succession property, in lieu of an inventory thereof, may be exercised without judicial authority.
The descriptive list of succession property authorized by Article 3136 shall be accepted as prima facie proof of all matters shown therein, unless amended or traversed successfully. La. Code Civ. P. art. 3137. The purpose of the detailed descriptive list is to provide a complete, concise evaluation of the property of the deceased thereby enabling the succession representative to properly administer the succession and informing heirs, creditors, and other interested parties to the nature and value of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Moore
... ... Succession of Anderson , 26,947 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/10/95), 656 So. 2d 42, writ denied , 95-1789 (La. 10/27/95), 662 So. 2d 3 ; In Succession of Reno , 15-0854 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/12/16), 202 So. 3d 1147, writ denied , 16-2106 (La. 2/10/17), 215 So. 3d 701 ). We discern no abuse of the trial court's discretion in assessing that each party bear his own costs in the trial of this matter or that McDonald's portion of the costs be assessed to him ... ...
-
In re Dean, 2017 CA 0155
... ... This court recently held a succession representative has no such duty. See In Succession of Reno , 15-0854 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/12/16), 202 So.3d 1147, 1155, writ denied , 16-2106 (La. 2/10/17), 215 So.3d 701. The administrator in Succession of Reno sought reimbursement from the decedent's estate for attorney fees incurred, in part, to challenge the decedent's last will. Denying recovery, ... ...
-
In re Succession Brandt
... ... Succession of Dean and Succession of Reno In addition to contesting the Kilpatrick decision, Mr. Milano argues that Louisiana courts have found an executor has no duty or right to attack a will or bring an action to annul a testament of a decedent. In support of this argument, Mr. Milano cites to Succession of Dean , 17-155 (La. App. 1 ... ...
-
In re Succession Larue, NUMBER 2016 CA 1146
... ... Succession of Bradford , 130 So.2d at 706. Further, while the estate may be liable for attorney fees incurred by the administrator for services performed for the benefit of the estate, the estate is not liable for attorney fees that benefit the administrator individually. Succession of Reno , 2015-0854 (La. App. 1 st Cir. 9/12/16), 202 So.3d 1147, 1154, writ denied , 2016-2106 (La. 2/10/17), ___ So.3d ___; Succession of Menendez , 160 So.2d 827, 829 (La. App. 4 th Cir. 1964). In this case, the Foundation was neither the administrator of the succession nor the succession ... ...