Succession of Aycock

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Succession of Aycock

819 So. 2d 290, 2002 La. LEXIS 1826, 2002 WL 1048984

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 24, 2002

DocketNo. 2002-C-0701

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 819 So. 2d 290 (Succession of Aycock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Succession of Aycock, 819 So. 2d 290, 2002 La. LEXIS 1826, 2002 WL 1048984 (La. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Granted. For an olographic will to be valid, the testament must be written, signed and dated in the handwriting of the testator. La. Civ.Code art. 1575 (formerly La. Civ.Code art. 1588). In this case, the notary filled in the date on the testament. While extrinsic evidence may be allowable in some circumstances to clarify an ambiguity, when the testament contains no date at all in the handwriting of the testator, a date cannot be inferred. See Succession of Boyd, 306 So.2d 687 (La.1975); Succession of Lefort, 139 La. 51, 71 So. 215 (La.1916). Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeal is reversed and the judgment of the trial court vacating the judgment of possession and appointing Mr. Sanders as administrator of the succession is reinstated.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Granted. For an olographic will to be valid, the testament must be written, signed and dated in the handwriting of the testator. La. Civ.Code art. 1575 (formerly La. Civ.Code art. 1588). In this case, the notary filled in the date on the testament. While extrinsic evidence may be allowable in some circumstances to clarify an ambiguity, when the testament contains no date at all in the handwriting of the testator, a date cannot be inferred. See Succession of Boyd, 306 So.2d 687 (La.1975); Succession of Lefort, 139 La. 51, 71 So. 215 (La.1916). Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeal is reversed and the judgment of the trial court vacating the judgment of possession and appointing Mr. Sanders as administrator of the succession is reinstated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

819 So. 2d 290, 2002 La. LEXIS 1826, 2002 WL 1048984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/succession-of-aycock-la-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack