In re Pedescleaux

341 So.3d 1224

SUCCESSION OF Charles C. PEDESCLEAUX

NO. 21-CA-611

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.

May 11, 2022

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, CHARLES PEDESCLEAUX, JR. Benjamin L. Johnson, Donaldsonville

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, OLGA PEDESCLEAUX Arthur A. Morrell, New Orleans, Madro Bandaries

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Marc E. Johnson, and Hans J. Liljeberg

JOHNSON, J.

Appellant, Olga Pedescleaux, seeks review of the Twenty-Third Judicial District Court's March 31, 2021 judgment that found her late husband's 2016 statutory will was valid and enforceable, and that he had the right to grant his son, Charles Jr., power of attorney to alienate his assets, including community property. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court judgment that found that the will and the power of attorney were valid and enforceable.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Charles C. Pedescleaux, Sr. (the "decedent") died at the age of 96 on April 16, 2017. Olga Pedescleaux ("Mrs. Pedescleaux"), the widow of the decedent who is in her 90s, filed a Petition to Open Succession on April 20, 2017, alleging that the decedent died intestate, and requesting that she be appointed Administratrix over the estate. The petition acknowledged the decedent's five surviving children born of a previous marriage by name: "Charlesetta, Connie, Charles Jr., Jessica and [Deedra]." Mrs. Pedescleaux was appointed Administratrix for the decedent's estate on April 27, 2017.

On June 1, 2017, Charles Pedescleaux, Jr. ("Charles Jr.") filed a "Petition to Admit the Last Will and Testament of Charles C. Pedescleaux, Sr." The will purported to leave all of the decedent's property "both real and personal, separate and community, movable and immovable corporeal and incorporeal" to the decendent's children—"Charles Pedescleaux, Jr., Charlesetta Pedescleaux Knight, Constance Pedescleaux Bernard, Jessica Pedescleaux Geason and Deedra Pedescleaux Grant"—to be shared equally. Charles Jr. requested that he be appointed Executor of the estate, per the will's provisions, and that certain real estate, located at 10561 Charles Lane in St. James Parish, Louisiana, be declared separate property, as the decedent purchased the property prior to his marriage to Mrs. Pedescleaux.

Thereafter, on December 20, 2018, Mrs. Pedescleaux filed a motion and memorandum titled:

Motion and Rule to Show Cause Why The Last Will and Testament of Charles C. Pedescleaux, Sr. Should Not be Null and Void Because of Failure to Observe Statutory Formalities; Why Mrs. Olga H. Pedescleaux, Spouse of Deceased Charles C. Pedescleaux, Sr. Should Not be Declared Administratrix of Decedent's Estate; Why All Financial Documents and Any and All Documents Whatsoever Being Held by Decedent's Children: Charles Pedescleaux, Jr., Charlesetta Pedescleaux Knight, Constance Pedescleaux Bernard, Jessica Pedescleaux Geason, And Deidra Pedescleaux Grant or Anyone Else Should Not Turn Over Said Documents to Mover and With Full Accounting of Said Financial Records and Documents and Why the Marital Domiciled [sic ] Should Not be Designated as Community Property.

The district court held a hearing on Mrs. Pedescleaux's motion on January 22, 2019. The district court denied her request that the last will and testament be declared null and void and took the issue of whether the home on Charles Lane was community property under advisement. A judgment was issued on January 25, 2019, which designated the family home located at 10561 Charles Lane as community property. Both parties appealed the district court's judgment.

However, on November 4, 2019, this Court on its own motion, found that the January 25, 2019 judgment was not a final judgment sufficient to invoke appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, we remanded the matter for the district court to render a final judgment and supplement the record. See Succession of Charles C. Pedescleaux , 19-250 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/4/19) (per curiam ). After we received a final, appealable judgment filed into the record on November 12, 2019, Charles Jr. filed a peremptory exception of nonjoinder under La. C.C.P. arts. 641 and 642, arguing that the decedent's four other children must be joined as parties to the proceedings due to their interests as legatees named in the will and individuals with an interest in the family home. We sustained the peremptory exception of nonjoinder, finding that the joinder of all of the decedent's children was required for proper adjudication of the matter. Therefore, we vacated the district court's amended final judgment and remanded the matter for joinder of the absent parties and retrial of the case. See Succession of Pedescleaux , 19-250 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/7/20), 290 So.3d 749, 751.

On March 3, 2020, Charles Jr. filed a Motion to Probate Statutory Will, to Appoint Testamentary Executor and to Rescind Appointment of Administratrix. On June 3, 2020, the district court ordered that the statutory will of decedent dated June 1, 2016 be filed for probate and executed, appointed Charles Jr. as executor of decedent's estate without the need of posting bond, and vacated the prior appointment of Mrs. Pedescleaux as Administratrix of the estate.

Mrs. Pedescleaux filed a First Supplemental and Amended Petition on August 7, 2020. The petition named all five of the decedent's children and heirs as defendants and prayed for judgment as follows: that the amended petition be made part of the record; that Charles Jr. provide a copy of the Power of Attorney, describe how he obtained it, and account for funds received through the Power of Attorney; that the family home at 10561 Charles Lane in St. James Parish be recognized as community property; and that the "alleged" will dated June 2 (sic), 2016, be declared "null and void." Mrs. Pedescleaux also asked that damages be awarded for her financial loss and the emotional distress she has suffered "due to the tortuous [sic] acts of defendants." Mrs. Pedescleaux later filed a Motion and Annexed Memorandum in Support of a Judgment Declaring the "Alleged Will" of Charles Pedescleaux, Sr. Null & Void and requested an expedited hearing pursuant to La. C.C.P. 1573 because of her advanced age and "poor health" on December 23, 2020. Mrs. Pedescleaux stated in her motion that the will was "null on its face [and] brought with malice and fraud on the part of her former step-children." Further, Mrs. Pedescleaux claimed that the statutory requirement that the will be read and signed in front of two competent witnesses and a notary was not met, and argued that her husband did not have the requisite capacity to execute a valid will. Attached as exhibits to the memorandum were a copy of the June 1, 2016 will, the transcript from the September 2, 2020 deposition of Charles Jr., Mrs. Pedescleaux's affidavit regarding the decedent's medical issues, and a copy of the Power of Attorney.

Defendants filed an answer to Mrs. Pedescleaux's supplemental and amended petition on December 3, 2020, and filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Rule to Show Cause on March 9, 2021. Attached to the memorandum in opposition were affidavits from Jessica Pedescleaux Geason and Brettaiene Celestin, the two witnesses present at the time the will was executed, to counter Mrs. Pedescleaux's allegation that the document did not meet the formal requirements of a statutory will because there was only one witness. The memorandum also addressed Mrs. Pedescleaux's claims of fraud and conversion regarding the couple's community property, but stated her arguments "[were] not relevant to the limited scope of the rule to show cause."

At the hearing on the rule to show cause held on March 19, 2021, Defendants’ counsel first made two motions in limine: the first, to exclude "anything alluding to [Mrs. Pedescleaux's] statements or anything else," as she was not present in court that day and available for cross-examination; and, second, to exclude an "assessment" of decedent's health – a October 12, 2015 CMI Employee Benefit Care Plan Report ("care plan") attached as an exhibit to Mrs. Pedescleaux's Opposition Brief to the [Defendants’] Pending Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on August 7, 2020.¹ Although Charles Jr. was questioned about the care plan at his deposition, counsel for Mrs. Pedescleaux said that they "did not need to use the assessment" during the hearing on the rule to show cause. Counsel also argued that Defendants did not subpoena Mrs. Pedescleaux, who was 93 years old at the time, and not a party to the will, or the power of attorney. The district court denied the first motion to exclude Mrs. Pedescleaux's statements, and determined the second motion to exclude the care plan was moot due to counsel's indication that it would not be introduced into evidence.

Next, Defendant and heir, Jessica Pedescleaux Geason testified, followed by Brettaiene Celestin, the long-time secretary of the Pedescleaux family's attorney, Benjamin Johnson. Ms. Geason testified that counsel read the will aloud, then her father read the will afterwards. She said that she questioned her father to ensure that he understood what was being done. Ms. Geason witnessed counsel signing the will after her father, Ms. Geason, and Ms. Celestin had done so – in that order. She further testified that her father could read and wore his glasses when he read the will, could hold a pen, had not been declared an interdict or mentally incompetent, and had not been prescribed any medication for dementia or Alzheimer's disease. On cross-examination, Ms. Geason identified her father's signature and initials at the bottom of page two of the will.

Ms. Celestin testified that she had typed the will at Attorney Johnson's direction, based on a previous discussion between the decedent and counsel. She confirmed that she witnessed the decedent and Ms. Geason signing the will, and further confirmed that her signature appeared on the will as a witness. She also testified that the will was read aloud by counse...