SUCCESSION OF LONEY * NO. 2025-CA-0404 LANDRY * COURT OF APPEAL
* FOURTH CIRCUIT
* STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******
CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:
SUCCESSION OF LONEY LANDRY NO. 2025-CA-0405
APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2018-01186, DIVISION “D” Honorable Monique E. Barial, Judge ****** Judge Daniel L. Dysart ****** (Court composed of Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge Karen K. Herman)
Michael G Bagneris BAGNERIS PIEKSEN & ASSOCIATES, LLC 935 Gravier Street, Suite 2110 Suite 2110 New Orleans, LA 70112
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
AFFIRMED
DECEMBER 3, 2024 DLD In this succession case, the testator, Loney Landry, executed two wills, the SCJ KKH first in favor of his daughter, Vanessa Marie Landry, in 2016 (“the 2016 will”), and
the second favoring his nephew, Sandy Williams, in 2017 (“the 2017 will”). Mr.
Williams appeals the trial court’s judgment finding that the 2017 will was invalid
on the grounds that Mr. Landry lacked the mental capacity to execute a last will
and testament. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 19, 2016, Mr. Landry executed a last will and testament in
which he bequeathed his entire estate to his daughter, Ms. Landry. In the 2016
will, Mr. Landry also named Ms. Landry as the independent executrix of his estate.
On September 26, 2017, Mr. Landry executed a second last will and testament in
which he bequeathed the funds deposited in Capitol One Bank account to Ms.
Landry and bequeathed the remainder of his estate to his nephew, Mr. Williams,
who was also named the independent executor of the estate.
1 Mr. Landry passed away on October 12, 2017. On February 6, 2018, Mr.
Williams filed a petition to open the succession of Mr. Landry and to name Mr.
Williams as the executor. Also, on February 6, 2018, Ms. Landry filed a “Petition
to Record, File and Execute Notarial Testament, for the Possession of Succession
Property with Administration, and for Confirmation of Independent Executor.” On
April 10, 2018, the trial court entered an order probating the 2016 will and
appointing Ms. Landry as the independent executrix of Mr. Landry’s succession.
On February 26, 2019, Mr. Williams filed a “Motion in Opposition to Ex
Parte Testament and to Request a Contradictory Hearing,” arguing that Mr. Landry
was of sound mind when he executed the 2017 will, which superseded the 2016
will. Mr. Williams requested that, following a contradictory hearing pursuant to
La. C.C.P. art. 2091, the trial court vacate its April 10, 2018 order. On February
24, 2020, the trial court entered a judgment denying Mr. Williams’ motion in
opposition to the ex parte testament. In its judgment, the trial court also found that
the 2016 will executed by Mr. Landry was his last legally valid testament. Mr.
Williams appealed this judgment.
This Court found “the record on appeal [did] not include Mr. Landry’s
medical records, which were introduced and admitted at the contradictory hearing
on Mr. Landry’s testamentary capacity.” Succession of Landry, 20-0398, 20-0399,
p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/31/21), 315 So.3d 949, 952. The Court reasoned that “[i]n
order for this court to properly address the argument that Mr. Landry lacked the
testamentary capacity to execute a last will and testament, we must review Mr.
2 Landry’s medical records, which were introduced at trial, and relied upon by the
trial court in rendering its decision.” Id. at p. 4, 315 So.3d at 952. Therefore,
pursuant to La. C.C.P. arts. 2126 and 2132, this Court remanded this matter to the
trial court for the limited purpose of correcting the record by supplementing the
record on appeal with Mr. Landry’s medical records.
Mr. Landry’s medical records appear in the record on appeal lodged with
this Court on July 3, 2025.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Mr. Williams raises the following assignments of error: (1) the
trial judge failed to make the intention of the testator the paramount factor in her
decision; (2) the trial judge failed to apply the presumption of testamentary
capacity; (3) the trial judge erred by finding that the presumption of testamentary
capacity had been overcome by clear and convincing evidence: and (4) the trial
judge erred by invalidating the testator’s will dated September 26, 2017. In
essence, Mr. Williams’ argument is that the trial court erred in finding that Ms.
Landry had overcome the presumption of testamentary capacity by clear and
convincing evidence when it invalidated Mr. Landry’s 2017 will.
In our earlier opinion, this Court articulated the law regarding testamentary
capacity. The Court explained:
Capacity to make a valid donation mortis causa must exist at the time the testator executes the testament. La. C.C. 1471. To have capacity to make a donation mortis causa, the person must be able to comprehend generally the nature and consequences of the disposition that he is making. La. C.C. art. 1477. There is a presumption in favor of testamentary capacity, and the validity of a testament should be
3 upheld whenever possible. Succession of Holzenthal, 12-0211, p. 10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/26/12), 101 So.3d 81, 88. The party alleging incapacity has the burden of proving the lack of capacity at the time the will was executed by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Id. The “clear and convincing” standard requires a party to prove the existence of a contested fact is highly probable, or much more probable than its non-existence. Id. Comment (f) to La. C.C. art. 1477 provides, in part:
Cases involving challenges to capacity are fact- intensive. The courts will look both to objective and subjective indicia. Illness, old age, delusions, sedation, etc. may not establish lack of capacity but may be important evidentiary factors. If illness has impaired the donor’s mind and rendered him unable to understand, then that evidentiary fact will establish that he does not have donative capacity.… Clearly, no quick litmus paper exists to apply to the evaluation of mental capacity in all cases.
Many sources of evidence are to be considered when evaluating a testator’s capacity. Succession of Holzenthal, 12-0211, p. 11, 101 So.3d at 88. In cases involving challenges to testamentary capacity, courts will look to the medical evidence that is available, such as medical records. Succession of Holzenthal, 12-0211, p. 10-11, 101 So.3d at 88.
Succession of Landry, 20-0398, 20-0399, p. 3, 315 So.3d at 951-952.
According to Mr. Landry’s medical records, he was admitted to the hospital
on September 21, 2017 due to altered mental status and suspected seizure activity.
His medical records indicated episodes of delirium and confusion, as well as a host
of other medical conditions and illnesses. Mr. Landry took numerous medications,
including chronic prescription opiates. During this hospitalization, Mr. Landry
was diagnosed with terminal prostrate cancer. On September 26, 2017, he was
discharged from the hospital in stable condition to hospice/home care.
At trial, Patricia Moore Williams, the ex-wife of Sandy Williams, was called
as a witness. Ms. Williams acted as Mr. Landry’s primary caregiver for
approximately the last year and a half of his life. She testified that she took Mr.
4 Landry to the hospital on September 21, 2017, when she found him
“unresponsive.” She also testified that she was the one who filled out and signed
all of Mr.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
SUCCESSION OF LONEY * NO. 2025-CA-0404 LANDRY * COURT OF APPEAL
* FOURTH CIRCUIT
* STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******
CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:
SUCCESSION OF LONEY LANDRY NO. 2025-CA-0405
APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2018-01186, DIVISION “D” Honorable Monique E. Barial, Judge ****** Judge Daniel L. Dysart ****** (Court composed of Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge Karen K. Herman)
Michael G Bagneris BAGNERIS PIEKSEN & ASSOCIATES, LLC 935 Gravier Street, Suite 2110 Suite 2110 New Orleans, LA 70112
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
AFFIRMED
DECEMBER 3, 2024 DLD In this succession case, the testator, Loney Landry, executed two wills, the SCJ KKH first in favor of his daughter, Vanessa Marie Landry, in 2016 (“the 2016 will”), and
the second favoring his nephew, Sandy Williams, in 2017 (“the 2017 will”). Mr.
Williams appeals the trial court’s judgment finding that the 2017 will was invalid
on the grounds that Mr. Landry lacked the mental capacity to execute a last will
and testament. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 19, 2016, Mr. Landry executed a last will and testament in
which he bequeathed his entire estate to his daughter, Ms. Landry. In the 2016
will, Mr. Landry also named Ms. Landry as the independent executrix of his estate.
On September 26, 2017, Mr. Landry executed a second last will and testament in
which he bequeathed the funds deposited in Capitol One Bank account to Ms.
Landry and bequeathed the remainder of his estate to his nephew, Mr. Williams,
who was also named the independent executor of the estate.
1 Mr. Landry passed away on October 12, 2017. On February 6, 2018, Mr.
Williams filed a petition to open the succession of Mr. Landry and to name Mr.
Williams as the executor. Also, on February 6, 2018, Ms. Landry filed a “Petition
to Record, File and Execute Notarial Testament, for the Possession of Succession
Property with Administration, and for Confirmation of Independent Executor.” On
April 10, 2018, the trial court entered an order probating the 2016 will and
appointing Ms. Landry as the independent executrix of Mr. Landry’s succession.
On February 26, 2019, Mr. Williams filed a “Motion in Opposition to Ex
Parte Testament and to Request a Contradictory Hearing,” arguing that Mr. Landry
was of sound mind when he executed the 2017 will, which superseded the 2016
will. Mr. Williams requested that, following a contradictory hearing pursuant to
La. C.C.P. art. 2091, the trial court vacate its April 10, 2018 order. On February
24, 2020, the trial court entered a judgment denying Mr. Williams’ motion in
opposition to the ex parte testament. In its judgment, the trial court also found that
the 2016 will executed by Mr. Landry was his last legally valid testament. Mr.
Williams appealed this judgment.
This Court found “the record on appeal [did] not include Mr. Landry’s
medical records, which were introduced and admitted at the contradictory hearing
on Mr. Landry’s testamentary capacity.” Succession of Landry, 20-0398, 20-0399,
p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/31/21), 315 So.3d 949, 952. The Court reasoned that “[i]n
order for this court to properly address the argument that Mr. Landry lacked the
testamentary capacity to execute a last will and testament, we must review Mr.
2 Landry’s medical records, which were introduced at trial, and relied upon by the
trial court in rendering its decision.” Id. at p. 4, 315 So.3d at 952. Therefore,
pursuant to La. C.C.P. arts. 2126 and 2132, this Court remanded this matter to the
trial court for the limited purpose of correcting the record by supplementing the
record on appeal with Mr. Landry’s medical records.
Mr. Landry’s medical records appear in the record on appeal lodged with
this Court on July 3, 2025.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Mr. Williams raises the following assignments of error: (1) the
trial judge failed to make the intention of the testator the paramount factor in her
decision; (2) the trial judge failed to apply the presumption of testamentary
capacity; (3) the trial judge erred by finding that the presumption of testamentary
capacity had been overcome by clear and convincing evidence: and (4) the trial
judge erred by invalidating the testator’s will dated September 26, 2017. In
essence, Mr. Williams’ argument is that the trial court erred in finding that Ms.
Landry had overcome the presumption of testamentary capacity by clear and
convincing evidence when it invalidated Mr. Landry’s 2017 will.
In our earlier opinion, this Court articulated the law regarding testamentary
capacity. The Court explained:
Capacity to make a valid donation mortis causa must exist at the time the testator executes the testament. La. C.C. 1471. To have capacity to make a donation mortis causa, the person must be able to comprehend generally the nature and consequences of the disposition that he is making. La. C.C. art. 1477. There is a presumption in favor of testamentary capacity, and the validity of a testament should be
3 upheld whenever possible. Succession of Holzenthal, 12-0211, p. 10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/26/12), 101 So.3d 81, 88. The party alleging incapacity has the burden of proving the lack of capacity at the time the will was executed by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Id. The “clear and convincing” standard requires a party to prove the existence of a contested fact is highly probable, or much more probable than its non-existence. Id. Comment (f) to La. C.C. art. 1477 provides, in part:
Cases involving challenges to capacity are fact- intensive. The courts will look both to objective and subjective indicia. Illness, old age, delusions, sedation, etc. may not establish lack of capacity but may be important evidentiary factors. If illness has impaired the donor’s mind and rendered him unable to understand, then that evidentiary fact will establish that he does not have donative capacity.… Clearly, no quick litmus paper exists to apply to the evaluation of mental capacity in all cases.
Many sources of evidence are to be considered when evaluating a testator’s capacity. Succession of Holzenthal, 12-0211, p. 11, 101 So.3d at 88. In cases involving challenges to testamentary capacity, courts will look to the medical evidence that is available, such as medical records. Succession of Holzenthal, 12-0211, p. 10-11, 101 So.3d at 88.
Succession of Landry, 20-0398, 20-0399, p. 3, 315 So.3d at 951-952.
According to Mr. Landry’s medical records, he was admitted to the hospital
on September 21, 2017 due to altered mental status and suspected seizure activity.
His medical records indicated episodes of delirium and confusion, as well as a host
of other medical conditions and illnesses. Mr. Landry took numerous medications,
including chronic prescription opiates. During this hospitalization, Mr. Landry
was diagnosed with terminal prostrate cancer. On September 26, 2017, he was
discharged from the hospital in stable condition to hospice/home care.
At trial, Patricia Moore Williams, the ex-wife of Sandy Williams, was called
as a witness. Ms. Williams acted as Mr. Landry’s primary caregiver for
approximately the last year and a half of his life. She testified that she took Mr.
4 Landry to the hospital on September 21, 2017, when she found him
“unresponsive.” She also testified that she was the one who filled out and signed
all of Mr. Landry’s forms at the hospital because he was unable to fill out the
forms “hisself.”
Ms. Williams was present at the hospital when Michael Katz, the attorney
who prepared the 2017 will, came to see Mr. Landry. Ms. Williams testified that it
was not Mr. Landry that called Mr. Katz to come to the hospital, but her ex-
husband, Sandy Williams. Ms. Williams also testified that she did not want to and
did not witness the will. Mr. Katz then found a young lady who happened to be
down the hall at the time named Amaya Miller to witness the document. Ms.
Miller was unknown to Mr. Katz before this meeting and she was also a stranger to
both Mr. Landry and Ms. Williams.
When asked about Mr. Landry’s mental state on the day he signed the 2017
will, Ms. Williams testified: “Mr. Landry, he was kind of confused.” . . . “He
didn’t know what he really wanted to do.” As to why Mr. Landry signed the will,
Ms. Williams testified that “he felt like he was being forced.” She also offered
that: “He didn’t want to sign it.” Ms. Williams further testified that Mr. Katz had
come to the hospital on two occasions and that Mr. Landry wanted him to come a
third time to make some changes to the will, but she “didn’t call the lawyer back
the third time.”
As stated above, the “narrow issue” before this Court is whether the trial
court was manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong in finding that Ms. Landry met
her burden of proving that Mr. Landry lacked testamentary capacity at the time of
the making of the 2017 will by clear and convincing evidence. See Succession of
Braud, 94-0668, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/17/94), 646 So.2d 1168, 1170. Clearly,
5 the trial court found Ms. Williams to be a very credible witness; a finding which
can virtually never be manifestly erroneous in the absence of objective evidence to
the contrary. See Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La. 1989).
The evidence in the record before this Court also indicates that the 2017 will
was defective as to form. The 2017 will had a creation date of September 25,
2017, but was signed on September 26, 2017. Mr. Landry’s hospital records from
his final hospitalization also indicate that he was not able to sign the admittance
documents nor any of the treating/consultation documents during his entire stay in
the hospital. We also note that that Mr. Katz failed to properly ascertain whether
Amaya Miller, the witness to the testament, was duly qualified to act in such
capacity. There was no inquiry as to her age and no request for production of any
form of identification from Ms. Miller, whom Mr. Katz admits he did not know
and had never met before. Several handwritten changes were also made to the type
written document that were not signed or dated by the testator and it cannot be
determined exactly when those changes were made. These irregularities suggest
that the 2017 will was defective on its face.
Although there may be a presumption of testamentary capacity, the trial
court clearly believed that Ms. Landry overcame that presumption by clear and
convincing evidence when it found that the 2017 will was invalid on the grounds
that Mr. Landry lacked the mental capacity to execute a last will and testament.
Therefore, based on the record before this Court, consisting of the testimony at
trial, as well as other evidence admitted at trial, including Mr. Landry’s medical
records, we cannot say that such a finding was manifestly erroneous or clearly
wrong.
6 CONCLUSION
For the above and foregoing reasons, the trial court’s judgment finding the
2017 will invalid is affirmed.