Succession of Hawsey

Citations: 829 So. 2d 1092; 2002 La.App. 3 Cir. 0285; 2002 La. App. LEXIS 3309; 2002 WL 31473822Docket: No. 02-0285

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; October 29, 2002; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The appellants challenge the trial court's interpretation of their father’s will, particularly regarding the requirement for collation in the bequests, and dispute the judgment of possession, arguing it does not adequately place them in possession but merely prolongs the succession administration. The case involves the successions of Gloria Joan Hawsey, who died intestate in 1990, and her husband, Lemuel E. Hawsey, Jr., who passed away in 1999, leaving a will that directed the division of his estate among their eight children. Lyle E. Hawsey, their son, was appointed executor and initiated the succession process in December 1999.

In February 2000, several heirs of Mrs. Hawsey filed a Joint Petition for Possession, claiming entitlement to her estate, which was free of debt. Lyle contested this, citing ongoing community property issues and estate maintenance expenses, leading to the trial court denying the petition in August 2000. Subsequently, Lyle filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment in March 2001, seeking to validate the collation provisions of Mr. Hawsey's will against opposition from some heirs. The heirs raised exceptions of no right of action and prescription, arguing Lyle lacked the authority to demand collation and that claims regarding Mrs. Hawsey's estate were time-barred. The trial court denied these exceptions and affirmed the validity of the will's provisions in December 2001. Following this, Lyle filed a "Petition for Possession and Continuation of Administration," representing both successions and the other heirs.

A judgment dated December 13, 2001, ruled that the heirs were entitled to possession. The heirs appealed, raising four errors: 1) the trial court incorrectly overruled their peremptory exception of no right of action; 2) it erred in overruling the peremptory exception of prescription; 3) it rendered a judgment on collation despite insufficient evidence and calculations not adhering to collation law; and 4) it improperly signed an ex parte "Judgment of Possession and Continuation of Administration" under specific Civil Code articles.

The appellants argued that the trial court erred in rejecting their exceptions, claiming that Mr. Hawsey’s testamentary provisions regarding collation should follow Louisiana Civil Code standards. They contended that Lyle, as a legatee, was not a forced heir entitled to demand collation. Additionally, they asserted that the prescription exception should apply to Mrs. Hawsey’s succession due to the absence of a collation demand within ten years of her death.

The record indicates that the appellants' arguments were misguided. Mr. Hawsey’s olographic will expressed his intent to ensure equal treatment among his children, instructing that all monetary gifts be returned to the estate for collation. The will specified distributions among his children, with particular attention to ensuring equality, and included a document detailing his approach to collation, emphasizing the use of accounting methods to track gifts made to each child.

The document outlines the financial distribution of gifts from Mr. Hawsey to his children, emphasizing his intent for equal treatment among them after his death. As of August 13, 1998, total gifts to each child were recorded: Chick ($50,285.80), Linda ($2,600.09), Lois ($24,160.44), Leigh ($40,456.65), Laura ($9,834.43), Lynn ($27,062.60), Lyle ($29,087.75), and Lisa ($5,265.73), totaling $188,864.49. The distribution is based on Mr. Hawsey's records and is to be updated as additional gifts are given. The court, in denying exceptions related to the will's validity and the right of action, affirmed Mr. Hawsey's clear testamentary intent, as outlined in the will, and indicated that it should be followed without ambiguity. The court referenced La.Civ. Code art. 1611, emphasizing that the testator's intent governs testament interpretation. The trial court's acceptance of financial figures from a certified public accountant was also upheld despite the appellants' claims of error, as these figures were deemed relevant to the collation law.

Mr. Hawsey provided specific instructions regarding the distribution of gifts to his children, documented in his 'Collation Instructions Data.' At a hearing for the Petition for Declaratory Judgment, a certified public accountant, appointed by the court, testified about the gifts, noting some mathematical errors but confirming figures consistent with Mr. Hawsey's instructions. Previous assignments of error were deemed without merit, including claims that certain gifts should not have been included in the collation as per statutory rules. 

On December 13, 2001, Lyle filed a 'Petition for Possession and Continuation of Administration,' requesting that the heirs receive their respective portions of the estate, reduced by the gifts received, and that he be allowed to manage the estate due to its complexity. The judgment of possession was signed the same day, aligning with the petition's requests. The appellants argued the judgment did not meet the requirements of La.Code Civ. P. art. 3061, specifically claiming it failed to properly place the heirs into possession of the property. However, the court found that the judgment indeed ordered the heirs to be placed into possession of their respective shares. 

The court also upheld the continuation of Lyle as administrator/executor, citing ongoing complexities in the succession process as justification. Ultimately, the appellants' arguments regarding the judgment's validity and Lyle's continued role were found to lack merit.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, with all costs assigned to the appellants: Lois E. Kelley, Leigh E. Hawsey, Laura Strohmeyer, Lisa E. Hawsey, and Anne M. Hawsey. According to Louisiana Civil Code article 876, there are two types of successors: testate (legatees) and intestate (heirs). Although the appellants are referred to as 'heirs' for convenience, they are also legatees under their father's will. Anne M. Phillips Hawsey intervened, declaring she is not an heir of Gloria Joan Buterbaugh Hawsey but the donee of Lemuel E. Hawsey, III's rights in his mother’s succession. Article 1235 of the Louisiana Civil Code restricts the right to demand collation to first-degree descendants who qualify as forced heirs, applicable only to gifts made within three years prior to the decedent’s death. Article 3499 states that personal actions are subject to a ten-year liberative prescription unless otherwise stated. The decree orders that Laura Edith Hawsey Strohmeyer is granted an undivided one-eighth interest in Lemuel Earl Hawsey, Jr.'s estate, minus $9,665.73 owed to the estate, with similar provisions for the other children.