Opinion
NUMBER 2012 CA 1774
04-30-2013
IN THE MATTER OF THE MASHBURN MARITAL TRUST
L. Kevin Coleman Mandeville, LA Attorney for Appellants Joseph Patton "Pat" Mashburn and Richard Anthony Mashburn, in their capacities as the Co-Trustees of the Mashburn Family Trust, and Joseph P. Mashburn and Don Mashburn, in their capacities as Co-Trustees and Managing Trustees of the Jack and Sadie Pugh Mashburn Marital Trust Walter Antin, Jr. Hammond, LA Attorney for Appellee Timothy R. Mashburn
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appealed from the
21st Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of Tangipahoa, Louisiana
Trial Court Number 71,685 c/w 2001-003363
Honorable Ernest G. Drake, Jr., Judge
L. Kevin Coleman
Mandeville, LA
Attorney for Appellants
Joseph Patton "Pat"
Mashburn and Richard Anthony
Mashburn, in their capacities as the
Co-Trustees of the Mashburn Family
Trust, and Joseph P. Mashburn and
Don Mashburn, in their capacities as
Co-Trustees and Managing Trustees
of the Jack and Sadie Pugh Mashburn
Marital Trust
Walter Antin, Jr.
Hammond, LA
Attorney for Appellee
Timothy R. Mashburn
BEFORE: PARRO, WELCH, AND KLINE, JJ.
Hon. William F. Kline, Jr., retired, is serving as judge ad hoc by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court.
WELCH , J.
In this latest appeal concerning the Jack and Sadie Pugh Mashburn Marital Trust ("marital trust") and the Mashburn Family Trust ("family trust"), Joseph Patton ("Pat") Mashburn and Donald J. ("Don") Mashburn, in their capacities as the co-trustees and managing trustees of the marital trust, and Pat Mashburn and Richard A. Mashburn, in their capacities as the co-trustees of the family trust, appeal a trial court judgment denying their request for injunctive relief against Timothy ("Tim") R. Mashburn, a beneficiary of both the marital and family trusts. We affirm the judgment in accordance with Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.2(A)(6), (7), (8), and (10).
See In Re Mashburn Marital Trust, 2004-1678 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/29/05), 924 So.2d 242, writ denied, 2006-1034 (La. 9/22/06), 937 So.2d 384 ("Mashburn Marital Trust (I)"); In Re Mashburn Marital Trusts, 2006-0741, 2006-0742, 2005-0887 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/28/06), 951 So.2d 1136, writs denied, 2007-0403, 2007-0446 (La. 4/20/07), 954 So.2d 164, 167 ("Mashburn Marital Trust (II)"); In Re Mashburn Marital Trust, 2006-1753, 2006-1754, 2005-0887 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/28/06), 947 So.2d 852 (unpublished opinion),writs denied, 2007-0403 and 2007-0446 (La. 4/20/07), 954 So.2d 164 and 167 ("Mashburn Marital Trust (III)"); In Re Mashburn Marital Trusts, 2008-0450 (La. App. 1st Cir. 10/31/08), 994 So.2d 157 (unpublished opinion) ("Mashburn Marital Trust (IV)"); In Re Mashburn Marital Trust, 2010-0278 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/22/10), 52 So.3d 1136, writ denied, 2011-0177 (La. 5/20/11), 63 So.3d 978 ("Mashburn Marital Trust (V)"); In Re Mashburn Marital Trust, 2010-1104 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/22/10), 52 So.3d 1127, writs denied, 2011-0474, 2011-0490 (La. 5/20/11), 63 So.3d 981 ("Mashburn Marital Trust (VI)"); In Re Mashburn Marital Trusts, 2010-1819 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/25/11), 58 So.3d 1154 (unpublished opinion),writ denied, 2011-0818 (La. 5/20/11), 63 So.3d 988 ("Mashburn Marital Trust (VII)"); In Re Mashburn Marital Trust, 2012-1382 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/24/13), ___ So.3d ___ (unpublished opinion)("Mashburn Marital Trust (VIII)"); and In Re Mashburn Marital Trusts, 2012-1773 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/30/13), ___ So.3d ___ ("Mashburn Marital Trust (IX)"). This case is referred to as In Re Mashburn Marital Trusts, 2012-1774 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/30/13), _So.3d _ (unpublished opinion)("Mashburn Marital Trust (X)"). See also Interdiction of Mashburn, 2012-1444 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/30/13) (unpublished opinion), ___ So.3d ___.
Essentially, in the proceedings below, the appellants sought to enjoin Tim Mashburn from further threatening, harassing, and communicating in any manner with any of the trustees' agents, investment advisors, bankers, accountants, attorneys, and any and all other such persons retained or consulted by the trustees pertaining to any matters relating to the trusts. The appellants contend that, despite this court's previous decisions to the contrary, Tim Mashburn believes that he is entitled to control the assets of his two trusts; that his consent is required for any investment, payment of expenses, or any other use of the assets of his two trusts; that a separate trustee must be appointed for his two trusts; and that he is entitled to an annual separate accounting for each of his two trusts. The appellants further contend that, based on these erroneous beliefs, Tim Mashburn has started a campaign of frivolous, harassing complaints to various professional disciplinary boards against the trusts' lawyer, accountant, and investment advisors/brokers, and that his repetitive, continuous actions have interfered with the trustees' management of the trusts.
Following a hearing, the trial court denied the injunctive relief by judgment signed on April 20, 2012, and from this judgment, the appellants have appealed. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 3601(A) provides that "[a]n injunction shall be issued in cases where irreparable injury, loss, or damage may otherwise result to the applicant, or in other cases specifically provided by law[.]" Whether to grant or deny an injunction lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Absent a clear abuse of this discretion, the trial court's ruling will not be disturbed on appeal. City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge v. 200 Government Street, LLC, 2008-0510 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/23/08), 995 So.2d 32, 36, writ denied, 2008-2554 (La. 1/9/09), 998 So.2d 726.
Although the trial court did not provide any reasons for denying the injunction, the trial court apparently concluded that irreparable injury, loss, or damage would not result to the appellants. After a thorough review of the record, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the injunction. Our previous decisions in this litigation are now definitive judgments on the issues addressed therein. To the extent that Tim Mashburn does not understand those decisions or disagrees with them, and continues to file complaints against professionals consulted or retained by the trustees relative to issues that this court has already ruled on, those complaints are matters to be handled by the respective disciplinary boards or entities for those professionals—not by this court or the trial court.
We note, however, that to the extent Tim Mashburn's actions may rise to the level of contempt of a court's judgments, the trial court and this court do have authority to address such matters. See La. C.C.P. art. 222; see also Charter School of Pine Grove, Inc. v. St. Helena Parish School Bd., 2007-2238 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/19/09), 9 So.3d 209, 224 ("The trial court is vested with great discretion in determining whether a party should be held in contempt of court and its decision will be reversed only when the appellate court discerns a clear abuse of that discretion.")
--------
Accordingly, the April 20, 2012 judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the appellants, Joseph Patton Mashburn and Donald J. Mashburn, in their capacities as the co-trustees and managing trustees of the Jack and Sadie Pugh Mashburn Marital Trust, and Joseph Patton Mashburn and Richard A. Mashburn, in their capacities as the co-trustees of the Mashburn Family Trust.
AFFIRMED.