STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NO. 2023 CA 0302
SUCCESSION OF JOSEPHINE BURGESS ROBINSON
Judgment Rendered: FEB 212024
On Appeal from the 21st Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Livingston l( State of Louisiana Trial Court No. 17844
Honorable Erika Sledge, Judge Presiding
Michael A. Betts Attorney for Appellant, Denham Springs, LA Barbara J. Robinson
D. Blayne Honeycutt Attorneys for Appellee, Hannah H. Calandro Charles Anthony Lee Denham Springs, LA
BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ. RESTER, J.
In this succession proceeding, Barbara Robinson appeals the trial court
judgment ordering her to pay sanctions pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 863 to
Charles Lee. For the following reasons, we vacate the portion of the judgment
imposing sanctions and remand for further proceedings.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Josephine Burgess Robinson died intestate on December 18, 2018. She had
five children: Barbara Robinson, Wanda Robinson Lee, Madelyn Robinson, Josef
Robinson, and Jasmine Robinson. On October 29, 2020, Barbara Robinson filed a
Petition for Possession stating that Wanda Lee predeceased Josephine Robinson and
had no children. She further stated that the remaining children are the only heirs of
the deceased and are entitled to ownership of all the property belonging to the
succession of Josephine Robinson equally and indivision. On November 5, 2020, a
Judgment of Possession was rendered recognizing Barbara Robinson, Madelyn
Robinson, Josef Robinson, and Jasmine Robinson as the sole heirs of the succession
of Josephine Robinson and sending them into possession of an equal, undivided
ownership over all the property belonging to the estate of Josephine Robinson. That
same day, an order was signed recognizing Barbara Robinson as the Executrix of the
Succession of Josephine Robinson.
On December 14, 2020, Charles Lee, the surviving spouse of Wanda Lee,
filed a " Petition to Nullify Judgment of Possession, to Issue Temporary Restraining
Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Permanent Injunction, and for Costs and
Attorney Fees." In his petition, Charles Lee contended that the November 5, 2020
judgment of possession was obtained by fraud and/ or ill practices because it was
procured through the perjured testimony of Barbara Robinson. Specifically, Charles
Lee asserted that in the petition for possession, Barbara Robinson falsely stated that
Wanda Lee predeceased Josephine Robinson. Charles Lee attached the Certified
2 Death Certificate of Wanda Lee showing that Wanda Lee passed on May 10, 2020,
which was after the death of Josephine Robinson on December 18, 2018. Charles
Lee alleged that Wanda Lee died testate, leaving the entirety of her estate to him,
and that if it were not for the perjured testimony of Barbara. Robinson, the Estate of
Wanda Lee would not have been deprived of the portion of Josephine Robinson' s
estate to which it is entitled. Further, Charles Lee alleged that after notifying counsel
for the succession of this issue, he was sent a " 30 day Notice to Vacate" letter alerting
him that a probate was filed on Josephine Robinson' s behalf and the ownership of
the property where he currently resides, 421 Central Street, that was previously
owned by Josephine Robinson had been transferred to Josephine Robinson' s heirs.
Charles Lee requested a temporary restraining order prohibiting the heirs of
Josephine Robinson from disturbing him, his property, and his residence.
In his petition, Charles Lee also contended that Josef Robinson and Jasmine
Robinson were allegedly adopted by Josephine Robinson, but no proof of the
adoption was submitted to the court, " which could thereby cause the Judgment of
Possession to further be rendered under fraudulent pretenses." On March 26, 2021,
Charles Lee amended his petition to request that the court revoke Barbara
Robinson' s appointment as Executrix of the Succession.
4n March 30, 2021, the parties entered a Stipulated Judgment ordering
Barbara Robinson to amend all necessary pleadings to cure the deficiency of
omitting Wanda Lee as an heir to the property of Josephine Robinson; ordering
Barbara Robinson to provide proof that Josephine Robinson successfully adopted
Josef Robinson and Jasmine Robinson; issuing a temporary restraining order
enjoining Barbara Robinson and the other heirs from disturbing Charles Lee' s
property and residence at 421 Central Street; and reserving Charles Lee' s claims for
court costs and attorney fees for trial.
3 The trial on attorney fees and costs was held on November 12, 2021. After
the trial, the trial court issued Reasons for Judgment, finding that the testimony at
trial clearly established that Barbara Robinson knew that her sister, Wanda Lee, had
not predeceased her mother and that Wanda Lee was married to Charles Lee at the
time of her death. The trial court ruled that the November 5, 2020 judgment of
possession be annulled due to ill practice; that Charles Lee be awarded court costs
in the amount of $2, 161. 53 and attorney fees in the amount of $5, 200. 00; that
Barbara Robinson be removed as the administrator of the Estate of Josephine
Robinson for failure to act as a prudent administrator; and that Madelyn Robinson
be appointed as the administrator of the Estate of Josephine Robinson, without bond.
A judgment in conformance with the trial court' s ruling was signed on January 19,
2022.
Thereafter, Barbara Robinson filed a motion for new trial, contending that the
January 19, 2022 judgment was clearly contrary to the law and failed to consider
several factors. Charles Lee opposed the motion for new trial and requested
sanctions, contending that Barbara Robinson' s motion for new trial was frivolous
and violated three of the four affirmative duties in La. Code Civ. P. art. 863. In his
motion, Charles Lee argued that Barbara Robinson failed to provide any justification
that the January 19, 2022 judgment was contrary to law and failed to cite any law in
her motion.
The matter was set for April 11, 2022, but was continued due to the health of
Barbara Robinson' s counsel. It was subsequently reset for August 15, 2022. an
August 12, 2022, counsel for Barbara Robinson requested that the hearing be
continued through a written motion. The trial court denied the request for a
continuance, and Barbara Robinson' s motion for new trial and Charles Lee' s request
for sanctions were heard without Barbara Robinson or her counsel in attendance.
After a brief hearing, the trial court denied Barbara Robinson' s motion for new trial,
4 granted Charles Lee' s request for sanctions, and ordered Barbara Robinson to pay
Charles Lee $ 2, 500. 00 in sanctions and $ 264. 42 in additional costs. A judgment
was signed in conformance with her ruling on September 21, 2022. It is from the
September 21, 2022 judgment that Barbara Robinson appeals, contending that the
trial court erred in awarding sanctions because the motion for new trial did not
violate the requirements of La. Code Civ. P. art. 863, and the trial court did not
describe the sanctionable conduct or explain the basis for the imposition of sanctions
as required by La. Code Civ. P, art. 863( G). Barbara Robinson did not challenge 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
NO. 2023 CA 0302
SUCCESSION OF JOSEPHINE BURGESS ROBINSON
Judgment Rendered: FEB 212024
On Appeal from the 21st Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Livingston l( State of Louisiana Trial Court No. 17844
Honorable Erika Sledge, Judge Presiding
Michael A. Betts Attorney for Appellant, Denham Springs, LA Barbara J. Robinson
D. Blayne Honeycutt Attorneys for Appellee, Hannah H. Calandro Charles Anthony Lee Denham Springs, LA
BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ. RESTER, J.
In this succession proceeding, Barbara Robinson appeals the trial court
judgment ordering her to pay sanctions pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 863 to
Charles Lee. For the following reasons, we vacate the portion of the judgment
imposing sanctions and remand for further proceedings.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Josephine Burgess Robinson died intestate on December 18, 2018. She had
five children: Barbara Robinson, Wanda Robinson Lee, Madelyn Robinson, Josef
Robinson, and Jasmine Robinson. On October 29, 2020, Barbara Robinson filed a
Petition for Possession stating that Wanda Lee predeceased Josephine Robinson and
had no children. She further stated that the remaining children are the only heirs of
the deceased and are entitled to ownership of all the property belonging to the
succession of Josephine Robinson equally and indivision. On November 5, 2020, a
Judgment of Possession was rendered recognizing Barbara Robinson, Madelyn
Robinson, Josef Robinson, and Jasmine Robinson as the sole heirs of the succession
of Josephine Robinson and sending them into possession of an equal, undivided
ownership over all the property belonging to the estate of Josephine Robinson. That
same day, an order was signed recognizing Barbara Robinson as the Executrix of the
Succession of Josephine Robinson.
On December 14, 2020, Charles Lee, the surviving spouse of Wanda Lee,
filed a " Petition to Nullify Judgment of Possession, to Issue Temporary Restraining
Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Permanent Injunction, and for Costs and
Attorney Fees." In his petition, Charles Lee contended that the November 5, 2020
judgment of possession was obtained by fraud and/ or ill practices because it was
procured through the perjured testimony of Barbara Robinson. Specifically, Charles
Lee asserted that in the petition for possession, Barbara Robinson falsely stated that
Wanda Lee predeceased Josephine Robinson. Charles Lee attached the Certified
2 Death Certificate of Wanda Lee showing that Wanda Lee passed on May 10, 2020,
which was after the death of Josephine Robinson on December 18, 2018. Charles
Lee alleged that Wanda Lee died testate, leaving the entirety of her estate to him,
and that if it were not for the perjured testimony of Barbara. Robinson, the Estate of
Wanda Lee would not have been deprived of the portion of Josephine Robinson' s
estate to which it is entitled. Further, Charles Lee alleged that after notifying counsel
for the succession of this issue, he was sent a " 30 day Notice to Vacate" letter alerting
him that a probate was filed on Josephine Robinson' s behalf and the ownership of
the property where he currently resides, 421 Central Street, that was previously
owned by Josephine Robinson had been transferred to Josephine Robinson' s heirs.
Charles Lee requested a temporary restraining order prohibiting the heirs of
Josephine Robinson from disturbing him, his property, and his residence.
In his petition, Charles Lee also contended that Josef Robinson and Jasmine
Robinson were allegedly adopted by Josephine Robinson, but no proof of the
adoption was submitted to the court, " which could thereby cause the Judgment of
Possession to further be rendered under fraudulent pretenses." On March 26, 2021,
Charles Lee amended his petition to request that the court revoke Barbara
Robinson' s appointment as Executrix of the Succession.
4n March 30, 2021, the parties entered a Stipulated Judgment ordering
Barbara Robinson to amend all necessary pleadings to cure the deficiency of
omitting Wanda Lee as an heir to the property of Josephine Robinson; ordering
Barbara Robinson to provide proof that Josephine Robinson successfully adopted
Josef Robinson and Jasmine Robinson; issuing a temporary restraining order
enjoining Barbara Robinson and the other heirs from disturbing Charles Lee' s
property and residence at 421 Central Street; and reserving Charles Lee' s claims for
court costs and attorney fees for trial.
3 The trial on attorney fees and costs was held on November 12, 2021. After
the trial, the trial court issued Reasons for Judgment, finding that the testimony at
trial clearly established that Barbara Robinson knew that her sister, Wanda Lee, had
not predeceased her mother and that Wanda Lee was married to Charles Lee at the
time of her death. The trial court ruled that the November 5, 2020 judgment of
possession be annulled due to ill practice; that Charles Lee be awarded court costs
in the amount of $2, 161. 53 and attorney fees in the amount of $5, 200. 00; that
Barbara Robinson be removed as the administrator of the Estate of Josephine
Robinson for failure to act as a prudent administrator; and that Madelyn Robinson
be appointed as the administrator of the Estate of Josephine Robinson, without bond.
A judgment in conformance with the trial court' s ruling was signed on January 19,
2022.
Thereafter, Barbara Robinson filed a motion for new trial, contending that the
January 19, 2022 judgment was clearly contrary to the law and failed to consider
several factors. Charles Lee opposed the motion for new trial and requested
sanctions, contending that Barbara Robinson' s motion for new trial was frivolous
and violated three of the four affirmative duties in La. Code Civ. P. art. 863. In his
motion, Charles Lee argued that Barbara Robinson failed to provide any justification
that the January 19, 2022 judgment was contrary to law and failed to cite any law in
her motion.
The matter was set for April 11, 2022, but was continued due to the health of
Barbara Robinson' s counsel. It was subsequently reset for August 15, 2022. an
August 12, 2022, counsel for Barbara Robinson requested that the hearing be
continued through a written motion. The trial court denied the request for a
continuance, and Barbara Robinson' s motion for new trial and Charles Lee' s request
for sanctions were heard without Barbara Robinson or her counsel in attendance.
After a brief hearing, the trial court denied Barbara Robinson' s motion for new trial,
4 granted Charles Lee' s request for sanctions, and ordered Barbara Robinson to pay
Charles Lee $ 2, 500. 00 in sanctions and $ 264. 42 in additional costs. A judgment
was signed in conformance with her ruling on September 21, 2022. It is from the
September 21, 2022 judgment that Barbara Robinson appeals, contending that the
trial court erred in awarding sanctions because the motion for new trial did not
violate the requirements of La. Code Civ. P. art. 863, and the trial court did not
describe the sanctionable conduct or explain the basis for the imposition of sanctions
as required by La. Code Civ. P, art. 863( G). Barbara Robinson did not challenge the
trial court' s denial of her motion for new trial.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 863 authorizes a court to impose
sanctions upon an attorney, or a represented party, who signs pleadings without
making an objective reasonable inquiry into the facts and the law. Bourgeois v.
Bourgeois, 2023- 0038 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9113113), 135 So -3d 1, 5. writ not
considered, 2013- 2439 ( La. 1/ 27114), 130 So. 3d 954. To impose sanctions, a trial
court must find that one of the affirmative duties imposed by Article 863 has been
violated. Bourgeois, 135 So. 3d at 6. Article 863 provides, in pertinent part:
B. Pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit or certificate, except as otherwise provided by law, but the signature of an attorney or party shall constitute a certification by him that he has read the pleading, and that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, he certifies all of the following:
1)The pleading is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.
2) Each claim, defense, or other legal assertion in the pleading is warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
3) Each allegation or other factual assertion in the pleading has evidentiary support or, for a specifically identified allegation or factual assertion, is likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable
opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
5 4) Each denial in the pleading of a factual assertion is warranted by the evidence or, for a specifically identified denial, is reasonably based on a lack of information or belief
With regard to the imposition of sanctions, Article 863 further provides:
D. If, upon motion of any party or upon its own motion, the court determines that a certification has been made in violation of the provisions of this Article, the court shall impose upon the person who made the certification or the represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction which may include an order to pay to the other party the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, including reasonable attorney fees.
E. A sanction authorized in Paragraph D shall be imposed only after a hearing at which any party or his counsel may present any evidence or argument relevant to the issue of imposition of the sanction.
G. If the court imposes a sanction, it shall describe the conduct determined to constitute a violation of the provisions of this Article and explain the basis for the sanction imposed.
Article 863( G) mandates a court imposing sanctions to describe the conduct
the court determined to constitute a violation of Article 863 and explain the basis for
the sanctions imposed. See La. R.S. 1: 3, (" The word `shall' is mandatory"). During
the brief hearing, the trial court noted the motions before the court, including the
motion for new trial and the request for sanctions. The trial court concluded, " I have
read all the motions. Considering that there' s no opposition, I' m going to deny the
motion for new trial." The trial court then asked counsel for Charles Lee the amount
of attorney fees that were expended in preparation, and Charles Lee' s attorney
responded. The trial court then stated, " I' m going to award attorney fees as sanctions
as requested in your motion in the amount of $2, 500." The judgment provides that
Charles Anthony Lee' s request for sanctions be and is hereby GRANTED."
The trial court did not describe the conduct it determined to constitute a
violation of Article 863 or explain the basis for the sanctions imposed in the oral
reasons for judgment or in the judgment. Since the trial court failed to explain the
basis for the imposition of sanctions, this court cannot determine what affirmative duties imposed by Article 863 the trial court found Barbara Robinson to have
violated.' Although Article 863 does not prescribe the specific consequence that
will follow from the trial court' s non- compliance with Article 863( G), we conclude
that the most appropriate action is to vacate that portion of the judgment which
imposed sanctions and remand the matter to the trial court to describe the conduct it
determined to constitute a violation of the provisions of the Article and explain the
basis for the sanction imposed as required by Article 863( G).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the September 21, 2022 judgment is vacated insofar
as it imposed sanctions, and the matter is remanded for the trial court to comply with
La. Code Civ. P. art. 863( G).2 All costs of the appeal are divided evenly between
Appellant, Barbara Robinson, and Appellee, Charles Lee.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
This case is distinguishable from Molinere v. Lapeyrouse, wherein the trial court explicitly adopted the memorandum of the exceptor stating, "[ T] he exceptions and request for sanctions are well -taken and should be GRANTED ... for reasons exceptors assigned in brief and attached hereto, which the Court adopts as its reasons." ( Emphasis in original.) Molinere v. Lapeyrouse, 2016- 0991 ( La. App. lst Cir. 21] 7/ 17), 214 So. 3d 887, 895.
Z The denial of the motion for new trial was not before this court on appeal.