Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In Re Succession of Plummer
Citations: 847 So. 2d 185; 2003 La. App. LEXIS 1422; 2003 WL 21085843Docket: 37,243-CA
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; May 14, 2003; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
In the case of Succession of Ronald R. Plummer, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana affirmed the trial court's ruling that the document presented for probate was not a valid olographic will. Ronald R. Plummer, who attempted to create an inter vivos trust in 1999, named his siblings as beneficiaries. However, he died in 2000 without completing the trust. Following his death, his daughter’s mother petitioned to declare him intestate, prompting his siblings to file a petition to probate an alleged will, which was actually a section from the trust document. The trial court found that the contested document lacked unmistakable testamentary intent and that the authenticity of Plummer's signature had not been established. The appellants appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in its conclusion and that the lack of a complete transcript from the evidentiary hearing hindered their ability to conduct a proper review. Despite their claims, the appellate court upheld the trial court's decision. The absence of certain witness testimony is argued to indicate testamentary intent. Upon discovering that the court reporter could not provide a transcript, the trial court instructed both parties to summarize witness testimony. The appellants submitted their summary but did not request a remand to retake testimony. According to La. C.C.P. art. 2161, an appeal cannot be dismissed due to an incomplete record, and the court has the discretion to remand for correction or retrial. However, incomplete records can be amended post-transmission through party stipulation or court action (La. C.C.P. art. 2132). If witness testimony is untranscribed, the appellant must seek a joint written narrative; if no consensus is reached, the judge will provide a conclusive narrative (La. C.C.P. art. 2131). The trial judge failed to follow this procedure, opting instead to ask for summaries, which both parties provided. Despite this procedural error, remand is deemed unnecessary. The appellate court can defer questions about record completeness to focus on merits, potentially dismissing an appeal if records are insufficient. The trial court's finding of no testamentary intent was based on the document's language rather than witness testimony, and parol evidence is inadmissible for establishing testamentary intent. The loss of recorded testimony did not prejudice the case's outcome regarding testamentary intent. Although the narrative procedure was not strictly followed, the record suffices to address the key issue of the olographic will's validity, which requires valid form and a clear indication of a last will disposition. An olographic will must be entirely handwritten, dated, and signed by the testator, with proof from two credible witnesses verifying the handwriting (La. C.C. art. 1575; La. C.C.P. art. 2883). "Credible witnesses" includes those familiar with the testator’s handwriting and handwriting experts. Proof of an alleged olographic will's validity can be established by any credible individual familiar with the testator's handwriting, not just handwriting experts, as per La. C.C.P. art. 2833. Courts have relaxed the formal requirements for olographic wills over time, allowing for variations such as using slash dates instead of full dates, and permits for writing in both ink and pencil. Importantly, however, an olographic will must still be entirely written, dated, and signed in the testator’s handwriting. In the current case, the trial court determined that Exhibit A failed as an olographic will due to a lack of unmistakable testamentary intent, referencing Succession of Burke, where the court upheld a will filled in by the decedent even though it used a printed form, emphasizing that testamentary intent must be clear. Appellants contend that the precedent from Burke requires disregarding printed words when assessing testamentary intent, arguing that if intent is present, the document should be considered a valid will. While some precedents have indeed upheld the validity of olographic wills despite printed elements, the facts in those cases differ significantly from the current case. Notable examples include wills written on blank pages or letterhead where the essential content was in the testator's handwriting. In contrast, instances with printed material not in the testator's handwriting have led to invalidation of the wills. In Succession of Robertson, the Louisiana court ruled an olographic will invalid because it featured a printed heading with the year partially printed, making the date effectively nonexistent. The court clarified that while printed elements like "New Orleans" on letterhead do not invalidate an olographic will, the essential requirement for the date to be in the testator's handwriting was not met. In Succession of Angele, the court determined that a typewritten will was invalid, emphasizing that "written" does not encompass typewritten documents. The Supreme Court in In re Succession of Aycock reversed a ruling that allowed an olographic will dated by a notary, reinforcing that a valid testament must be entirely in the testator's handwriting, including the date. The excerpt highlights that while incidental printed material may not affect the validity of an olographic will, significant printed content integral to the document cannot be disregarded. In the case of Mr. Plummer's inter vivos trust, the printed words were considered essential to the trust instrument, unlike mere stationery or letterhead. As such, the trial court rightly concluded that the document did not meet the requirements of a valid olographic will. The court also distinguished this case from Succession of Burke, noting that the testator in Burke intended to create a will, while Mr. Plummer was establishing a trust, leading to a lack of clear testamentary intent when the documents were viewed collectively. The trial court differentiated the current case from Succession of Burke, noting that the decedent used a "Revocable One-Party Living Trust" form, unlike the printed statutory will form in Burke. The court expressed doubt about the testamentary intent of the document submitted for probate. Citing Succession of Patterson, the court emphasized that the testator's intention must be determined without deviating from the document's terms. The animus testandi must be present when the instrument is executed, and it must be clear that the testator intended the specific paper as a will. In the case at hand, the document lacked actual bequests, primarily containing instructions for managing trust property and directing beneficiaries on property sales and financial management. While Mr. Plummer named beneficiaries and outlined specific directives, he failed to make clear bequests. The document did not demonstrate the necessary intent to serve as a will, leading the trial court to rule it invalid. Additionally, the court found that the required legal proof to authenticate Mr. Plummer's signature was not met, but deemed this point moot since the document failed as an olographic will on other grounds. The trial court's conclusion that the document was not a valid will was affirmed, with costs borne by the appellants. Notes clarify that testimony and documents submitted late were not considered, and the inter vivos trust referenced was not established by Mr. Plummer. The case raises the question of whether the document meets the criteria for a donation mortis causa—a will. Other notes mention that Succession of Burke has not been cited as authority in appellate court and discuss the treatment of extrinsic evidence regarding ambiguous dates.