Opinion
22-C-321
08-02-2022
SUCCESSION OF HUGH EDWARD TEAL IN RE SANDRA TEAL, THE UNIVERSAL LEGATEE UNDER THE PROBATED LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT DATED JULY 29, 2020
SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE VERCELL FIFFIE, DIVISION "A", NUMBER 79,68
Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson, John J. Molaison, Jr., and June B. Darensburg
Relator, Mrs. Sandra Teal, seeks expedited review of the 40th Judicial District Court's July 13, 2022 order prohibiting the distribution of "fund(s) of the succession or [any] amount held in the name of Hugh Edward Teal[, Mrs. Teal's late husband, . . .] in any manner to pay amounts due to and for any debts payable to, for, or by any successor, legatee, or any other person involved or attached to this litigation without an order to do so from" the district court. Relator alleges that the district court erred when 1) it "nullified the authority of the duly appointed and confirmed Independent Testamentary Executor and precluded the parties from resolving the case via settlement by freezing the assets of the estate"; and 2) failed to grant two pending, unopposed motions: Intervenor Thomas Smith's Motion to Withdraw Claims and Dismiss with Prejudice; and Relator's Ex Parte Unopposed Motion to Authorize Executor to Make an Advance to The Universal Legatee ("Unopposed Motion,") which requested the trial court to again confirm the statutory authority of the Testamentary Independent Executor to make an advance to Relator to fund her settlement payments to Margaret and Diane Teal Robinson, collateral family members of decedent. Margaret and Diane Teal instituted litigation against Mrs. Teal in a separate proceeding also before Judge Vercell Fiffie. For the following reasons, we grant the writ application.
Margaret Teal is the widow of decedent's deceased brother, and Diane Teal Robinson is their daughter and, thus, decedent's niece.
Decedent, Hugh Edward Teal, died testate February 24, 2021, leaving a notarial will. Decedent was survived by his spouse, Sandra Zeagler Teal, with whom he was living and residing at the time of his death. Decedent had no children (natural, adopted, or filiated).
Prior to decedent's death, he executed a notarial will that was attested to before a notary and two witnesses (also attorneys). Decedent's will provided for an independent administration, and named and appointed Mr. Feingerts, relator, as independent executor of his estate, with full seizin and without bond, to carry out its dispositions. Following decedent's death, on February 25, 2021, pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 2853, the attorneys for Sandra Teal, filed a Petition to Probate decedent's notarial will and to confirm the appointment of Mr. [Bruce L.] Feingerts, relator, who accepted the appointment as independent executor of decedent's estate.Succession of Teal, 21-226 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/4/21); 2021 WL 2301802 at *1-2. In the previous writ application regarding this matter, Mr. Feingarts was the relator. This Court found that 1) La. C.C.P. arts. 3091 and 3094 do not apply when the decedent died testate; and 2) and once presented with the notarial testament, hearing no contest from the parties to the succession, the trial court was under a mandatory obligation to probate it in accordance with the mandates set forth in the testament. We ordered the district court to order the probate of the decedent's notarial will pursuant to La. C.C.P. art 2891, and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with that disposition. On June 29, 2021, the trial court ordered the authorization of the independent administration, confirmed the appointment of Mr. Feingerts as Independent Executor, without bond, and "FURTHER ORDERED that all necessary steps required by the laws of the State of Louisiana and all other legal requirements are to by conformed with."
In a letter dated June 6, 2022, counsel for the Collateral Teals advised the district court that all of their differences with Mrs. Teal and Mr. Feingerts, in his capacity as Independent Executor of the succession, have been resolved and that they would be filing dismissal motions in both Docket No. 74716 and the instant matter. Intervenor, Thomas Smith, who had joined the Collateral Teals in their claims against the Applicant, also notified the District Court on June 20th, 2022 that he was withdrawing his claims with prejudice. Mr. Smith filed a Motion to Withdraw Claims and Dismiss with Prejudice.
Mr. Smith's motion was granted by the district court on July 14, 2022.
Relator then filed an Ex Parte Unopposed Motion to Authorize Executor to Make an Advance to The Universal Legatee ("Unopposed Motion") on July 1, 2022. Relator advised that all parties affected by this Motion were contacted and and consented to the motion in accordance with Local Rule 9.8(f). Rather than grant the Unopposed Motion confirming the independent executor's statutory authority, the district court issued an order on July 13, 2022, sua sponte, "freezing all estate funds, in effect converting the Succession proceeding from an independent administration to an ordinary administration." Relator advised that as of Monday, July 18, 2022, he is in technical default of the settlement agreement because the July 13, 2022 order prohibits him, as independent executor, from facilitating the settlement payment to the Collateral Teals.
Upon review of the record, we find that the district court's July 13, 2022 order restricting the independent executor's ability to act without prior court authorization for the succession was a constructive removal of an independent administrator. An independent administrator has all the rights, powers, authorities of other succession representatives, including the authority needed to pay debts and settle lawsuits, but without the necessity of obtaining court approval to exercise them. La. C.C.P. art. 3396.15. The court may remove an independent administrator for the same reasons that a succession representative may be removed. § 15:30. Independent administrator, 10 La. Civ. L. Treatise, Successions And Donations § 15:30 (2d ed.).
The procedure for removal of a succession representative is governed by Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure articles 3182 and 3396.20. Article 3182 provides, in pertinent part, "The court on its own motion may, and on motion of any interested party shall, order the succession representative sought to be removed to show cause why he should not be removed from office." Similarly, Article 3396.20 authorizes the court "on motion of any interested person, after a contradictory hearing" to remove an independent administrator for any of the reasons provided by applicable law. In a contested proceeding, these articles require a rule to show cause and a contradictory hearing to remove a succession representative.
In re Succession of Cannata, 14-1546 (La.App. 1 Cir. 7/10/15); 180 So.3d 355, 365, writ denied, 15-1686 (La. 10/30/15); 180 So.3d 303; Therefore, the trial court erred when it stripped the independent executor of his authority without giving him notice and an opportunity to appear and show cause why he should not be removed. See Succession of Cannata, supra.
Based on the foregoing, the writ application is granted. We vacate the district court's July 13, 2022 order and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.
MEJ
JJM
JBD
WRIT GRANTED