Succession of Fellman

Citations: 698 So. 2d 477; 96 La.App. 4 Cir. 1738; 1997 La. App. LEXIS 2053; 1997 WL 441768Docket: 96-CA-1738

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; August 6, 1997; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Mary Anna Fellman Feibelman appealed a trial court judgment that denied her Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and granted a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the executor of her brother John H. Fellman's estate and the trustees of a trust established in his will. Fellman died testate on October 28, 1995, and had no spouse or children. In his will, he created a trust for the descendants of Jacob Lemann and bequeathed the residue of his estate to the trustees for educational and medical purposes for those descendants.

Feibelman challenged the validity of Paragraph 6 of the will, arguing it did not create a valid charitable or private trust, and sought to have it stricken, which would allow her to inherit the estate under intestacy laws. The trustees countered that the trust was valid under Louisiana law and could potentially be reformed into a charitable trust. After a hearing on May 24, 1996, the trial court found that while a charitable trust was not established, Paragraph 6 did create a valid private trust under the Louisiana Trust Code, benefiting the Lemann descendants. The appellate court amended and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Ms. Feibelman assigns four errors to the trial court regarding the handling of a will: the court's refusal to grant her judgment on the pleadings after ruling that the will did not establish a valid charitable trust; its conclusion that the testator intended to create a private trust; its invalid creation of a private trust under Louisiana law; and its failure to recognize her as Mr. Fellman's intestate heir and principal beneficiary of the trust. 

She argues that the trial court's finding negated the validity of a charitable trust, which should have led to treating the problematic condition in Paragraph 6 of the will as if it were non-existent, per La. Civ. Code art. 1519. Ms. Feibelman contends the court overlooked this article and effectively rewrote the will. She also claims the court disregarded La. Civ. Code arts. 1573 and 1712, which address testamentary provisions and the intent of the testator. 

The trial court found that Mr. Fellman intended to bequeath his estate's residue as a private trust for the descendants of Jacob Lemann, a finding deemed not manifestly erroneous. The court determined that only the specific problematic language creating the charitable trust should be stricken from the will, allowing for the expression of Mr. Fellman's donative intent. Ms. Feibelman argued that the court erred in removing the term "needy" from the testament and in defining beneficiaries as Jacob Lemann's descendants born or in utero at Mr. Fellman's death. However, the judgment was interpreted as establishing a private trust without undermining Mr. Fellman’s intent.

Regarding her third assignment of error, Ms. Feibelman claims the court erred by creating a private trust due to a lack of objectively ascertainable beneficiaries. The court disagreed, stating that Louisiana law requires only that beneficiaries be designated in a manner allowing for objective identification based on the trust instrument's standards. Her argument was considered overly focused on the term "needy," rather than the overall intent of the will.

Mr. Fellman established a trust intended for the descendants of Jacob Lemann, with only these descendants qualifying as beneficiaries. Ms. Feibelman challenges this intent, citing La. Civ. Code art. 1573, which restricts a testator from granting executors power for testamentary dispositions. However, La. R.S. 9:1961 permits a settlor to limit a beneficiary's interest based on objective standards outlined in the trust document. Specifically, Mr. Fellman directed trustees to assist descendants with educational or medical expenses, which aligns with La. R.S. 9:2068 allowing distributions for these purposes under objective standards.

Despite Ms. Feibelman's assertion that the term "in need of medical or educational expenses" lacks objective criteria, the court determined that education and medical expenses inherently provide such standards. The requirement for three trustees ensures objective income distribution. Ms. Feibelman argues no beneficiaries existed at her brother’s death; however, affidavits confirm the existence of descendants needing assistance at that time.

She also raises concerns about a potentially forbidden class within the beneficiaries. The Trust Code allows trusts for a class that can include descendants, and the court found Mr. Fellman intended a private trust with multiple beneficiaries rather than a limited class trust. Ms. Feibelman claims entitlement as an intestate heir or principal beneficiary; while the court affirmed the establishment of a private trust, it did not address her heirship claim. However, it amended the judgment to name her as the principal beneficiary of the trust, affirming this decision. Additionally, a third trustee named in the will had passed away, and the remaining trustees replaced him without issue. The court denied exceptions raised by the trustees regarding necessary parties.