Succession of Byrd

Citations: 142 So. 3d 1058; 2014 WL 2599645; 2014 La. App. LEXIS 1525Docket: No. 48,996-CA

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; June 11, 2014; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Olivia B. Davis, administrator of the Succession of Ervin Byrd, appeals a district court's summary judgment favoring intervenors Charles Etta Jones Jack, Alice Mae Jones Fulcher, Mary Louise Jones Woods, and Norene Williams Wilson. Ervin Byrd died intestate on July 14, 1965. Davis was appointed the administrator on February 8, 2011, and executed an affidavit stating that Ervin had been married twice, had one child (Davis's father, Luther Byrd), and had no other children or adoptions. On April 19, 2011, Davis filed a petition for mineral lease authority, which was granted by the court after no opposition was filed.

On September 26, 2012, the intervenors filed a petition claiming their father, Robert C. Byrd, was Ervin Byrd's son, and they only learned of the succession proceedings on September 14, 2012. They stated Robert died intestate in 1987 and had been granted possession of his interests in Ervin's succession in a judgment recorded in 2005. They sought an injunction to prevent any distribution of Ervin's property until their claims were resolved and a court order was issued to disclose property inventory and prior distributions.

The intervenors moved for summary judgment to be recognized as Ervin Byrd's descendants, providing documents, including Robert’s death certificate, affidavits of family connections, and records of their attempts to open Ervin's succession. The district court's judgment in favor of the intervenors was affirmed.

Davis contended in her response to the motion for summary judgment that there is a lack of direct evidence to support the claim that Robert C. Byrd is Ervin Byrd's child. She also raised an exception of peremption, asserting that Ervin did not formally acknowledge Robert during his life and that Robert failed to establish filiation within one year of Ervin's death. The district court, after hearing the arguments, granted summary judgment in favor of the intervenors, requiring Davis to amend the Affidavit of Death and Heirship to reflect that Robert is one of Ervin's children and to administer the succession according to intestacy laws. The court noted that some affidavits contained speculative opinions and hearsay, but placed significant weight on the certified Death Certificate, which is deemed admissible as prima facie evidence under La. R.S. 40:42. 

Davis appealed, arguing that the evidence, including Robert’s death certificate, was inadequate to prove that the intervenors were Ervin's heirs and that the court improperly assigned significant weight to the death certificate. The criteria for granting summary judgment require that there be no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, with the burden resting on the opposing party to present specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue for trial. Summary judgments are favored under Louisiana law, but factual inferences must be drawn in favor of the opposing party. Appellate courts review summary judgments de novo, applying the same standards as the trial court.

Robert, born out of wedlock on September 6, 1912, faced inheritance challenges due to Louisiana law at the time, which barred illegitimate children from inheriting from their natural fathers. Although the U.S. Supreme Court and Louisiana Supreme Court later deemed such laws unconstitutional, these rulings only applied retroactively from January 1, 1975. From 1980 to 2005, Louisiana allowed out-of-wedlock children to establish paternal descent through informal acknowledgment. 

In this case, documents from Robert Byrd's succession and his death certificate, which named Ervin Byrd as his father, provided prima facie evidence of paternity under Louisiana law. The burden to dispute this evidence fell on Davis, the plaintiff, who failed to do so. Instead, she presented affidavits from herself and her siblings claiming Ervin was their only child and had not acknowledged Robert. However, their depositions indicated that Robert lived on family land, was referred to as "Uncle Booger," and had been acknowledged by Ervin as "son." Additionally, Robert had affirmed his status as a grandson of Sam and Emma Byrd in an affidavit.

The district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the intervenors was upheld, as the evidence presented supported the claim of Robert's paternity and inheritance rights related to Ervin Byrd’s estate.

Davis argues that the district court erred by not addressing her prescription exception, claiming that the intervenors' filiation claim has prescribed due to the lack of action within one year of Ervin Byrd’s death. The intervenors received a judgment of possession on February 11, 2005, granting them all interests in Ervin Byrd's unopened succession, which Davis and her siblings did not contest. If Davis could prove standing, she had two years from the finality of that judgment to challenge it, but the record indicates she never attempted to do so. Consequently, the seven-year-old judgment serves as prima facie evidence of Robert Byrd's interest in Ervin's succession, which the intervenors now possess. This judgment cannot be collaterally attacked. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the intervenors and assessed the appeal costs to Davis, the administrator of Ervin Byrd's estate. The document also notes that Olivia Davis’s husband was not acquainted with Ervin and that the affidavit included in the succession petition established the lineage without indication of other children. Amendments to the law regarding filiation for unacknowledged illegitimate children were highlighted, stating that an action to establish filiation must have been filed by September 11, 1982, or it may not be established thereafter. The judgment of possession acts as prima facie evidence of the claimants' relationship to the deceased and their rights.