Succession of Poynot

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Succession of Poynot

330 So. 2d 366, 1976 La. App. LEXIS 3716

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 13, 1976

DocketNo. 7643

StatusPublished

This text of 330 So. 2d 366 (Succession of Poynot) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Succession of Poynot, 330 So. 2d 366, 1976 La. App. LEXIS 3716 (La. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

REDMANN, Judge.

Airey v. Airey, 1972, 262 La. 383, 263 So.2d 330 (affirming La.App., 250 So.2d 52), differs from this rule to obtain physical possession of a will from the lawyer of a living but now interdicted testatrix in that this rule was filed (1) not in the proceedings for the interdiction of the testatrix but in her deceased husband’s succession, before a different judge of the same court, (2) by one co-curator who is not a bank, (3) against both the lawyer and the second co-curator (who is also executor of this succession), and (4) prior to any disclosure of the will’s content by photocopy. The judgment ordered both the lawyer and the executor to deliver the will to the two co-curators: that is, the executor as executor was ordered to deliver to himself as co-cu.rator as well as to the other co-curator.

The supreme court’s ruling in Airey, whatever its theory, is that when a trial court has ordered that the lawyer (who can make a photocopy for his own purposes) deliver the original will to the curator, that order will not be disturbed. Although we were originally of the opinion that the recited differences in circumstances distinguished this case from Airey, we now conclude that they do not.

Affirmed.

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

REDMANN, Judge.

Airey v. Airey, 1972, 262 La. 383, 263 So.2d 330 (affirming La.App., 250 So.2d 52), differs from this rule to obtain physical possession of a will from the lawyer of a living but now interdicted testatrix in that this rule was filed (1) not in the proceedings for the interdiction of the testatrix but in her deceased husband’s succession, before a different judge of the same court, (2) by one co-curator who is not a bank, (3) against both the lawyer and the second co-curator (who is also executor of this succession), and (4) prior to any disclosure of the will’s content by photocopy. The judgment ordered both the lawyer and the executor to deliver the will to the two co-curators: that is, the executor as executor was ordered to deliver to himself as co-cu.rator as well as to the other co-curator.

The supreme court’s ruling in Airey, whatever its theory, is that when a trial court has ordered that the lawyer (who can make a photocopy for his own purposes) deliver the original will to the curator, that order will not be disturbed. Although we were originally of the opinion that the recited differences in circumstances distinguished this case from Airey, we now conclude that they do not.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

330 So. 2d 366, 1976 La. App. LEXIS 3716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/succession-of-poynot-lactapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack