Succession of Aycock

819 So. 2d 290, 2002 La. LEXIS 1826, 2002 WL 1048984
Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided May 24, 2002·No. No. 2002-C-0701·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

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

819 So. 2d 290 (Succession of Aycock) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Succession of Cannon
166 So. 3d 1097 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2015)
In re Succession of Boada
130 So. 3d 350 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2013)
In Re Succession of Plummer
847 So. 2d 185 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2003)