Succession of Johnson Brackins, III
Opinion
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 12-1311
SUCCESSION OF JOHNSON BRACKINS, III
**********
APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ACADIA, DOCKET NO. 2011-20263, DIV. A HONORABLE JOHN D. TRAHAN, DISTRICT JUDGE
**********
JAMES T. GENOVESE
JUDGE
**********
Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, James T. Genovese, and John E. Conery, Judges.
AFFIRMED.
Roshell Jones 405 West Main Street, Suite 107 Lafayette, Louisiana 70501 (337) 504-3437 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Verna B. Brackins
Joseph J. Vincent 1224 North Parkerson Avenue Post Office Drawer 450 Crowley, Louisiana 70527-0450 (337) 783-3796 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Laraine Workman Ryner
GENOVESE, Judge.
Appellant, Verna B. Brackins (Verna), appeals the trial court‟s grant of a motion for involuntary dismissal in favor of Appellee, Laraine Workman Ryner (Laraine), finding that Verna failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the decedent, Johnson Brackins, III, lacked testamentary capacity at the time he executed his last will and testament naming Laraine as his sole legatee. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The record indicates that Johnson Brackins, III (decedent), died on November 3, 2011. Prior to his death, decedent executed a notarial will1 dated February 14, 2011, before attorney Lyle O. Fogleman, Jr. (Attorney Fogleman), in which his entire estate was left to his girlfriend, Laraine. On November 9, 2011, Laraine filed the will for probate.2 On November 28, 2011, Verna, sister of decedent, filed a Petition Contesting the Probate of the Will, alleging (1) lack of testamentary capacity, (2) undue influence, (3) fraud, and (4) lack of authenticity.
On July 23, 2012, trial of this matter was held. At the close of Verna‟s case, Laraine moved for an involuntary dismissal.3 In oral reasons for ruling, the trial court addressed Laraine‟s motion for a judgment of involuntary dismissal stating:
There‟s no evidence. A notarial testament is self-proving. It needs no proof to be probated. And in order to nullify it, there has to be some
1 See La.Civ.Code arts. 1576–1580.1.
2 Decedent‟s will also named Laraine as the executrix of his succession.
3 The procedure governing motions for involuntary dismissal is found in La.Code Civ.P. art. 1672(B), which provides as follows:
In an action tried by the court without a jury, after the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, any party, without waiving his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal of the action as to him on the ground that upon the facts and law, the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. The court may then determine the facts and render judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of the moving party or may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence.
proof of incapacity or undue influence. There‟s been none, no evidence.
The only people who were there at all testified, without contradiction, that he well knew what he was doing when he executed the will.
The closest [Verna‟s] case comes to showing any incapacity at all is the testimony of Mr. Donnie Brackins who said that during those many months before [decedent] died that sometimes he was confused[,] but that he also had periods of lucidity. That doesn‟t come close to proving that on February 14, 2011, he was anything less than fully capable of executing a testament and having testamentary capacity.
There‟s no proof, and I‟m going to grant your motion[.]
A written judgment was signed on August 6, 2012. Verna appeals.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
In her sole assignment of error, Verna asserts:
The trial court manifestly erred when it granted [Laraine‟s]
Motion for Involuntary Dismissal yet failed to invalidate the decedent‟s will after testimony was presented that the Notary Public and testator signed the will in the intensive care unit of a hospital in Lafayette, Louisiana, while the witnesses signed the will at a hospital in Crowley, Louisiana.
LAW
“A trial court‟s granting of an involuntary dismissal is reviewed for manifest error.” Chenevert v. Hilton, 07-1223, p. 6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/5/08), 978 So.2d 1078, 1083, writ denied, 08-731 (La. 5/30/08), 983 So.2d 901 (citing Basic Home Care Serv., Inc. v. Dore, 06-1036 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/06), 945 So.2d 861).
“Capacity to donate mortis causa must exist at the time the testator executes the testament.” La.Civ.Code art. 1471. “To have capacity to make a donation . . . mortis causa, a person must also be capable to comprehend generally the nature and consequences of the disposition that he is making.” La.Civ.Code art. 1477. “In an action to annul a notarial testament . . . the plaintiff always has the burden of proving the invalidity of the testament.” La.Code Civ.P. art. 2932(B). “„A party is
presumed to have testamentary capacity, and the opponent bears the burden of defeating this presumption by putting forth clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.‟” In re Succession of Sandifer, 05-860, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/1/06), 923 So.2d 862, 865 (quoting Succession of Fletcher, 94-1426, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/5/95), 653 So.2d 119, 121, writ denied, 95-1105 (La. 6/16/95), 655 So.2d 338).
Louisiana Civil Code Article 1577 states:
The notarial testament shall be prepared in writing and dated and shall be executed in the following manner. If the testator knows how to sign his name and to read and is physically able to do both, then:
(1) In the presence of a notary and two competent witnesses, the testator shall declare or signify to them that the instrument is his testament and shall sign his name at the end of the testament and on each other separate page.
(2) In the presence of the testator and each other, the notary and the witnesses shall sign the following declaration, or one substantially similar: “In our presence the testator has declared or signified that this instrument is his testament and has signed it at the end and on each other separate page, and in the presence of the testator and each other we have hereunto subscribed our names this ____ day of _________, ____.”
“The formalities prescribed for the execution of a testament must be observed or the testament is absolutely null.” La.Civ.Code art. 1573.
DISCUSSION
Verna argues that the decedent‟s will should have been nullified by the trial court because the formalities required by La.Civ.Code art. 1577 were not met. According to Verna, “testimony was presented that [Attorney Fogleman] and [decedent] signed the will in the intensive care unit of a hospital in Lafayette, Louisiana, while the witnesses signed the will at a hospital in Crowley, Louisiana.”
Noteworthy is the fact that Verna‟s case at the trial of this matter dealt with whether the decedent possessed the requisite testamentary capacity on February 14,
2011; however, the argument presented in Verna‟s appeal concentrates on alleged defects in formality. Though the issue of defects in formality was not brought before the trial court and, therefore, is not properly before us, we feel obliged to address the misinterpretation of the evidence as presented by Verna. 4 Based upon our review of the evidence, we find Verna‟s version of the trial testimony to be inaccurate.
According to the record, the will was prepared and notarized by Attorney Fogleman. The witnesses to the execution of the testament were Linda W. Eaglin and Ruth B. Victoria. In her appellate brief, Verna asserts that the evidence at trial was such that Ms. Eaglin and Ms. Victoria signed the will as testamentary witnesses in Crowley, while decedent and Attorney Fogleman signed the will as testator and notary, respectively, in Lafayette. The evidence in the record refutes that assertion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Succession of Johnson Brackins, III (Succession of Johnson Brackins, III) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.