STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT
DOCKET NUMBER 2023 CA 0873
ESTATE OF CECILE COLEMAN JOHNSON
VERSUS
ALLISON WILLIAMS
Judgment Rendered: APR 2 6 2fla
ON APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, DIVISION G IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF ST. MARY STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 137, 183
HONORABLE CURTIS SIGUR, JUDGE PRESIDING
Morgan Field Attorney for Plaintiff -Appellant Baton Rouge, Louisiana Shane Alan Johnson, Administrator of the Succession of Cecile Coleman Johnson
Robert L. Duffy Attorney for Defendant -Appellee Berwick, Louisiana Allison Williams
BEFORE: THERIOT, PENZATO, AND GREENE, 33. GREENE, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment that sustained exceptions of no cause of action,
nonjoinder of parties, and vagueness and ambiguity of the petition. After review, we
reverse and remand.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 28, 2022, Shane Alan Johnson ( Mr. Johnson), the administrator of
the succession of his mother, Cecile Coleman Johnson ( Ms. Johnson), filed a petition for
an accounting, naming as defendant one of his four siblings, Allison Williams ( Ms.
Williams). Ms. Johnson died on June 26, 2021, at the age of 84. Mr. Johnson alleged
that Ms. Johnson' s living expenses had been significantly less than her social security
income. He further maintained that Ms. Johnson' s net worth had been reduced by over
400, 000. 00 in the five years prior to her death. Mr. Johnson alleged that, at the time
Ms. Johnson died, she was in good health except for memory problems, which he and
other family members suspected were the result of dementia or Alzheimer's disease.
Mr. Johnson listed a series of withdrawals from Ms. Johnson' s bank account
between June 29, 2016 and March 2, 2021, and maintained that, as Ms. Johnson did not
drive, he believed that Ms. Williams took Ms. Johnson to the bank to make the
withdrawals. He also noted that Ms. Johnson' s $ 52, 851. 00 IRA had been withdrawn and
the money had vanished. He maintained that he desired to determine where all of the
missing funds had been relocated or invested, and alleged that Ms. Williams possessed
either a portion of or all of the unaccounted for funds or could help locate the funds. He
asked that the court issue a rule to show cause why Ms. Williams should not be made to
assist in the inventory or accounting for the funds.
Ms. Williams filed exceptions raising the objections of vagueness or ambiguity,
nonjoinder of parties, insufficiency of citation, insufficient service of process, and no cause
of action. In part, Ms. Williams maintained that Ms. Johnson had never been interdicted,
and the only cause of action available to Mr. Johnson as administrator was for collation.
Ms. Williams prayed that the petition be dismissed.
The matter was heard on March 20, 2023. At the hearing, Ms. Williams' attorney
maintained that Ms. Johnson had not been interdicted and had been free to do as she
2 wished with her money. He maintained that the administrator's only available avenue
was to determine whether collation was applicable. At the close of the hearing, the trial
court stated that it had " no choice" but to grant the exception and noted "[ y] ou have to
find another avenue." The judgment stated, " this court does hereby sustain all exceptions
filed by [ Ms.] Williams" and dismissed the matter. The judgment was signed on April 17,
2023. Mr. Johnson appealed that judgment
On October 4, 2023, this Court issued a rule to show cause order, noting the
judgment appeared to lack appropriate decretal language because it failed to specify the
exceptions sustained and the relief awarded. This Court ordered the parties to show
cause by briefs whether the appeal should be remanded. Thereafter, this Court issued
an interim order on December 20, 2023, directing the trial court to issue an amended
judgment correcting the deficiencies by January 19, 2024.
An amended judgment was signed by the trial court on January 17, 2024. The
amended judgment sustained the peremptory exceptions raising the objections of no
cause of action and nonjoinder of parties and the dilatory exception raising the objection
of vagueness or ambiguity of the petition.
In his assignments of error, Mr. Johnson maintains that the trial court erred in
sustaining Ms. Williams' exception raising the objection of vagueness or ambiguity of the
petition, erred in sustaining Ms. Williams` exception raising the objection of nonjoinder of
a party as to the other heirs of Ms. Johnson, and erred in sustaining the exception raising
the objection of no cause of action and not allowing Mr. Johnson to amend his petition.
DISCUSSION
Nonjoinder ofparties
Except as otherwise provided by law, the succession representative appointed by
a court of this state is the proper plaintiff to sue to enforce a right of the deceased or of
his succession, while the latter is under administration. The heirs or legatees of the
deceased, whether present or represented in the state or not, need not be joined as
parties, whether the action is personal, real, or mixed. La. C. C. P. art. 685. As the heirs
need not be joined as parties in an action by the administrator to enforce a right of the
3 succession, we find the trial court erred in sustaining the exception raising the objection
of nonjoinder of parties. See La. C. C. P. art. 685.
No cause of action
The function of an exception of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency
of the petition by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in
the pleading. Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., 616 So. 2d
1234, 1235 ( La. 1993). No evidence may be introduced at any time to support or
controvert the objection that the petition fails to state a cause of action. La. C. C. P. art.
931.
Therefore, the court reviews the petition and accepts well pleaded allegations of
fact as true, and the issue at the trial of the exception is whether, on the face of the
petition, the plaintiff is legally entitled to the relief sought. Everything on Wheels
Subaru, Inc., 616 So. 2d at 1235.
Peremptory exceptions raising the objection of no cause of action present legal
questions, which are reviewed using the de novo standard of review. Marse v. Red
Frog Events, LLC, 2019- 1525 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 9/ 18/ 20), 313 So. 3d 1001, 1006, writ
denied, 2020- 01215 ( La. 12/ 22/ 20) 307 So. 3d 1044.
A succession representative shall be deemed to have possession of all property of
the succession and shall enforce all obligations in its favor. La. C. C. P. art. 3211. A
succession representative shall preserve, repair, maintain, and protect the property of
the succession. La. C. C. P. art. 3221.
Mr. Williams alleged that he was the administrator of his mother's estate, there
was money missing from his mother' s estate, that he believed his mother had dementia,
and that Ms. Williams possessed either all or a portion of the missing funds from the
estate or could help locate the funds. The law clearly recognizes a cause of action by
an administrator for the return of succession assets. La. C. C. P. art. 3211; In re
Succession of Duke, 44, 377 ( La. App. 2 Cir. 7/ 1/ 09), 16 So. 3d 459, 462. Under the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT
DOCKET NUMBER 2023 CA 0873
ESTATE OF CECILE COLEMAN JOHNSON
VERSUS
ALLISON WILLIAMS
Judgment Rendered: APR 2 6 2fla
ON APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, DIVISION G IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF ST. MARY STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 137, 183
HONORABLE CURTIS SIGUR, JUDGE PRESIDING
Morgan Field Attorney for Plaintiff -Appellant Baton Rouge, Louisiana Shane Alan Johnson, Administrator of the Succession of Cecile Coleman Johnson
Robert L. Duffy Attorney for Defendant -Appellee Berwick, Louisiana Allison Williams
BEFORE: THERIOT, PENZATO, AND GREENE, 33. GREENE, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment that sustained exceptions of no cause of action,
nonjoinder of parties, and vagueness and ambiguity of the petition. After review, we
reverse and remand.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 28, 2022, Shane Alan Johnson ( Mr. Johnson), the administrator of
the succession of his mother, Cecile Coleman Johnson ( Ms. Johnson), filed a petition for
an accounting, naming as defendant one of his four siblings, Allison Williams ( Ms.
Williams). Ms. Johnson died on June 26, 2021, at the age of 84. Mr. Johnson alleged
that Ms. Johnson' s living expenses had been significantly less than her social security
income. He further maintained that Ms. Johnson' s net worth had been reduced by over
400, 000. 00 in the five years prior to her death. Mr. Johnson alleged that, at the time
Ms. Johnson died, she was in good health except for memory problems, which he and
other family members suspected were the result of dementia or Alzheimer's disease.
Mr. Johnson listed a series of withdrawals from Ms. Johnson' s bank account
between June 29, 2016 and March 2, 2021, and maintained that, as Ms. Johnson did not
drive, he believed that Ms. Williams took Ms. Johnson to the bank to make the
withdrawals. He also noted that Ms. Johnson' s $ 52, 851. 00 IRA had been withdrawn and
the money had vanished. He maintained that he desired to determine where all of the
missing funds had been relocated or invested, and alleged that Ms. Williams possessed
either a portion of or all of the unaccounted for funds or could help locate the funds. He
asked that the court issue a rule to show cause why Ms. Williams should not be made to
assist in the inventory or accounting for the funds.
Ms. Williams filed exceptions raising the objections of vagueness or ambiguity,
nonjoinder of parties, insufficiency of citation, insufficient service of process, and no cause
of action. In part, Ms. Williams maintained that Ms. Johnson had never been interdicted,
and the only cause of action available to Mr. Johnson as administrator was for collation.
Ms. Williams prayed that the petition be dismissed.
The matter was heard on March 20, 2023. At the hearing, Ms. Williams' attorney
maintained that Ms. Johnson had not been interdicted and had been free to do as she
2 wished with her money. He maintained that the administrator's only available avenue
was to determine whether collation was applicable. At the close of the hearing, the trial
court stated that it had " no choice" but to grant the exception and noted "[ y] ou have to
find another avenue." The judgment stated, " this court does hereby sustain all exceptions
filed by [ Ms.] Williams" and dismissed the matter. The judgment was signed on April 17,
2023. Mr. Johnson appealed that judgment
On October 4, 2023, this Court issued a rule to show cause order, noting the
judgment appeared to lack appropriate decretal language because it failed to specify the
exceptions sustained and the relief awarded. This Court ordered the parties to show
cause by briefs whether the appeal should be remanded. Thereafter, this Court issued
an interim order on December 20, 2023, directing the trial court to issue an amended
judgment correcting the deficiencies by January 19, 2024.
An amended judgment was signed by the trial court on January 17, 2024. The
amended judgment sustained the peremptory exceptions raising the objections of no
cause of action and nonjoinder of parties and the dilatory exception raising the objection
of vagueness or ambiguity of the petition.
In his assignments of error, Mr. Johnson maintains that the trial court erred in
sustaining Ms. Williams' exception raising the objection of vagueness or ambiguity of the
petition, erred in sustaining Ms. Williams` exception raising the objection of nonjoinder of
a party as to the other heirs of Ms. Johnson, and erred in sustaining the exception raising
the objection of no cause of action and not allowing Mr. Johnson to amend his petition.
DISCUSSION
Nonjoinder ofparties
Except as otherwise provided by law, the succession representative appointed by
a court of this state is the proper plaintiff to sue to enforce a right of the deceased or of
his succession, while the latter is under administration. The heirs or legatees of the
deceased, whether present or represented in the state or not, need not be joined as
parties, whether the action is personal, real, or mixed. La. C. C. P. art. 685. As the heirs
need not be joined as parties in an action by the administrator to enforce a right of the
3 succession, we find the trial court erred in sustaining the exception raising the objection
of nonjoinder of parties. See La. C. C. P. art. 685.
No cause of action
The function of an exception of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency
of the petition by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in
the pleading. Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., 616 So. 2d
1234, 1235 ( La. 1993). No evidence may be introduced at any time to support or
controvert the objection that the petition fails to state a cause of action. La. C. C. P. art.
931.
Therefore, the court reviews the petition and accepts well pleaded allegations of
fact as true, and the issue at the trial of the exception is whether, on the face of the
petition, the plaintiff is legally entitled to the relief sought. Everything on Wheels
Subaru, Inc., 616 So. 2d at 1235.
Peremptory exceptions raising the objection of no cause of action present legal
questions, which are reviewed using the de novo standard of review. Marse v. Red
Frog Events, LLC, 2019- 1525 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 9/ 18/ 20), 313 So. 3d 1001, 1006, writ
denied, 2020- 01215 ( La. 12/ 22/ 20) 307 So. 3d 1044.
A succession representative shall be deemed to have possession of all property of
the succession and shall enforce all obligations in its favor. La. C. C. P. art. 3211. A
succession representative shall preserve, repair, maintain, and protect the property of
the succession. La. C. C. P. art. 3221.
Mr. Williams alleged that he was the administrator of his mother's estate, there
was money missing from his mother' s estate, that he believed his mother had dementia,
and that Ms. Williams possessed either all or a portion of the missing funds from the
estate or could help locate the funds. The law clearly recognizes a cause of action by
an administrator for the return of succession assets. La. C. C. P. art. 3211; In re
Succession of Duke, 44, 377 ( La. App. 2 Cir. 7/ 1/ 09), 16 So. 3d 459, 462. Under the
facts alleged, the petition states a cause of action. Vagueness or ambiguity of the petition
The purpose of the objection of vagueness is to place the defendant on notice of
the nature of the facts sought to be proved so as to enable him to identify the cause of
action, thus preventing its future relitigation after a judgment is obtained in the present
suit. Vanderbrook v. Jean, 2006- 1975 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 2/ 14/ 07), 959 So. 2d 965, 968.
However, the objection of vagueness does not entitle the defendant to demand
exactitude and detail of pleading beyond what is necessary to fulfill the aims outlined
above. If the plaintiffs petition fairly informs the defendant of the nature of the cause
of action and includes sufficient substantial particulars to enable the defendant to prepare
its defense, then the objection of vagueness will be denied. Vanderbrook, 959 So -2d
Herein, the claims were set forth with sufficient particularities to inform Ms.
Williams of the nature of those claims so as to allow preparation of a defense.
See State Through Louisiana Board of Ethics v. Dumas, 2023- 0013 ( La. App. 1 Cir.
6/ 2/ 23), 370 So. 3d 55, 60. Thus, the trial court erred in sustaining the objection raising
the exception of vagueness or ambiguity.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the trial court judgment is reversed and the matter is
remanded. The costs of this appeal are assessed against Allison Williams.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.