In re Succession Larue, NUMBER 2016 CA 1146
| Decision Date | 20 July 2017 |
| Docket Number | NUMBER 2016 CA 1146,C/W NUMBER 2016 CA 1147 |
| Parties | SUCCESSION OF MYRA DAROUSE LARUE |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appealed from the 21st Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St. Helena, Louisiana
Walter Antin, Jr.
Southeastern Louisiana University Foundation ("the Foundation"1), a legatee under the March 6, 2009 last will and testament of Myra Darouse LaRue, appeals a judgment homologating the first tableau of distribution by the administrator of the Succession of Myra LaRue. The judgment recognized, as a debt of the succession, the Foundation's claim for attorney fees in the amount of $100,000.00, which the Foundation claimed it had incurred in its action to annul the October 9, 2010 will executed by the decedent, and the judgment apportioned that claim among the legatees of the probated will on a pro rata basis. Judy Polidori, another legatee under the March 6, 2009 will, has answered the appeal. For reasons that follow, we reverse in part and vacate in part the judgment of the trial court, we render judgment, and we remand with instructions.
Myra LaRue died on October 22, 2010. Approximately thirteen days prior to her death, October 9, 2010, Myra LaRue executed a will ("the October 9, 2010 will"), which provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
On November 3, 2010, Mary Sue Darouse, filed a petition to probate the October 9, 2010 will. That same date, in a separate proceeding, the Foundation filed a petition for appointment of provisional administrator. Therein, the Foundation asserted that Myra LaRue had died testate, leaving one or more testaments, that no will had been filed with the Court, and that a search for a will needed to be made. The Foundation further alleged that during Myra LaRue's lifetime, she was a great friend and benefactor of Southeastern Louisiana University ("SLU"), her alma mater, and that on information and belief, Myra LaRue had bequeathed her home, its contents, and other assets to the Foundation. The Foundation further alleged that there were assets of Myra LaRue's estate that needed to be preserved, safeguarded and managed, and that an administration of the succession was necessary. Therefore, the Foundation sought to have a provisional administrator of the succession appointed. The trial court declined to appoint a provisional administrator, and the two proceedings were subsequently consolidated.
On December 1, 2010, the Foundation filed a petition to annul the Ocober 9, 2010 will ("the nullity action"). Named as defendants in the nullity action were the legatees under the October 9, 2010 will—Mary Sue Darouse, Mary Elizabeth Darouse Pardue, Judy Pardue Polidori, and Barbara Irene Pardue. In the petition, the Foundation alleged that it was a legatee under a previous will executed by Myra LaRue on March 6, 2009, which had been prepared by Clifton Speed, and that Mr. Speed was in possession of that will, but he had not filed it with the court and had refused to provide a copy to the Foundation. The Foundation further alleged that the October 9, 2010 will was invalid because: the requisite testamentary formalities set forth in La. C.C. arts. 1573 and 1576, et seq., were not observed during its execution; Myra LaRue lacked the requisite mental capacity to make the dispositions, as set forth in La. C.C. art. 1477; the will was the product of fraud or duress, as set forth in La. C.C. art. 1478; and the will was procured through undue influence, as set forth in La. C.C. art. 1479.
The nullity action proceeded to a trial on the merits, and at the conclusion of trial, the trial court took the matter under advisement. On February 24, 2012, the trial court issued extensive written reasons and rendered judgment in favor of the Foundation. In its written reasons, the trial court found, first and foremost, that the October 9, 2010 will was not confected in accordance with La. C.C. art. 1577(1),2 and therefore, it declared the October 9, 2010 will "null, void[,] and invalid." Next, the trial court found that it had "been shown by a clear and convincing standard that it [was] highly probabl[e] that the [October 9, 2010 will] was the product of undue influence, fraud, or duress[,]" and that it was "not the will of Myra LaRue; the trial court then declined to address the issue of Myra LaRue's mental capacity.3 On March 1, 2012, the trial court signed a judgment in accordance with its written reasons for judgment, finding that the October 9, 2010 will of Myra LaRue was "null, void, and invalid" and assessing all costs to Mary Elizabeth Darouse Pardue, Judy Pardue Polidori, Mary Sue Darouse, and Barbara Irene Pardue.4
On April 19, 2012, the Foundation filed a motion to fix costs against Mary Elizabeth Darouse Pardue, Judy Pardue Polidori, Mary Sue Darouse, and Barbara Irene Pardue. Therein, the Foundation sought to recover costs in the total amount of $45,334.56, which it claimed to have incurred in the nullity action. Thereafter, on September 25, 2012, the trial court rendered and signed a judgment5 granting the motion to fix costs, in part, and entering a money judgment in favor of the Foundation and against Judy Pardue Polidori, Mary Sue Darouse, Barbara Irene Pardue, and Mary Elizabeth Darouse Pardue, in solido, for costs in the total amount of $25,615.77 ("the costs judgment").6
At some point, a copy of the will executed by Myra LaRue on March 6, 2009 ("the March 6, 2009 will") was filed into the record of these proceedings.7 The March 6, 2009 will provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
The sworn detailed descriptive list filed by the administrator of the succession reveals that the estate of Myra LaRue was comprised of property with a total value of $350,680.74.9 Specifically, the estate consisted of immovable property with an appraised value of $250,000.00; a certificate of deposit in the amount of $85,000.00,10 a checking account with a balance of $14,337.52, a savings account with a balance of $143.22, a vehicle with a value of $600.00, and personal tangible property, furniture, fixtures, and personal effects valued at $600.00.
On October 29, 2013, the administrator of the succession filed a petition for homologation of the first tableau of distribution. Therein, the administrator sought the trial court's approval to make distributions, as charges and offsets from Myra LaRue's legacy to Judy Polidori (the $85,000 certificate of deposit), for the following: (1) $26,844.58 (plus judicial interest on that amount) to the Foundation for the costs owed by Judy Polidori (and the other defendants) pursuant to the costs judgment;11 (2) $12,047.00 to Beatrice Arnone for monies withdrawn by Judy Polidori, Barbara Irene Pardue, Mary Sue Darouse and/or Mary Elizabeth Darouse Pardue, from Myra LaRue's checking account after her death; (3) and $427.00 to the succession of Myra LaRue for electric services paid to DEMCO after Myra LaRue died and while the home was being occupied by Judy Polidori, Barbara Irene Pardue, Mary Sue Darouse, and/or Mary Elizabeth Darouse Pardue. In addition, as to the remaining $45,681.42,12 the administrator sought a determination from the trial court as to whether that sum should be paid directly to Judy Polidori (i.e., placing Judy Polidori into possession of the funds remaining in her legacy) or to the Foundation pursuant to a claim by the Foundation for reimbursement or offset for the litigation expenses/attorney fees it incurred in the nullity action in the amount of $100,000.13
Thereafter, on June 13, 2014, the attorneys representing Judy Polidori filed a petition of intervention and notice of claim pursuant to La. R.S. 9:5001. Therein, Judy Polidori's attorneys asserted that they had been hired by Judy Polidori and her family to represent their interests in the succession of Myra LaRue; that the March 6, 2009 will had been probated, which named Judy Polidori as a beneficiary of "all certificates of deposit;" that Judy Polidori had agreed to compensate her attorneys on an hourly basis and to satisfy her legal or professional fees through any judgment of possession or other adjudication to her of property from the estate; and that Judy Polidori had incurred legal or professional fees in the amount of $309,622.01 that had not been paid. Accordingly, the attorneys sought to intervene and file a notice of claim pursuant to La. R.S. 9:5001 to protect their professional fee interest in any judgment of possession and/or...
To continue reading
Request your trial