Summary
This document is a dissenting opinion in Succession of Steve Anthony Pilet concerning whether the decedent revoked an unsigned copy of a testament and whether a signed and notarized copy should be probated. The dissent argues that the presumption of revocation was weak and that the evidence did not establish affirmative conduct by the decedent showing an intent to revoke the testament. It would reverse the trial court and remand for probate of the signed and notarized notarial testament.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the presumption that a missing testament was revoked was sufficiently established by the evidence.
- Whether Louisiana law requires affirmative conduct by the testator to establish revocation of an entire testament.
- Whether the trial court improperly relied on the appellant's submission of an unsigned copy of the purported will under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2853 in assessing her credibility.
- Whether the signed and notarized copy of the decedent's testament should have been probated.
Holdings
- In the dissent's view, the record did not establish revocation because there was no evidence that the decedent physically destroyed the testament, directed its destruction, formally declared revocation, or clearly revoked it in a handwritten instrument.
- The dissent concluded that Kathi McDonald's credibility should not have been undermined merely because she submitted an unsigned copy of the purported will, because article 2853 permits a person to present such a document without vouching for its authenticity or validity.
Key quotations
“The law affords Appellant McDonald the right to present the unsigned will to the court without taking a position as to its veracity. Her belief as to validity or invalidity of the document is immaterial.”
“Most importantly, the record is devoid of any evidence that the Decedent expressed an intention to revoke his testament, or that he treated any bequest in his testament as revoked.”
Factual background
Steve Anthony Pilet had a signed and notarized notarial testament that could not be located after his death, while a copy was available through his longtime attorney. Evidence indicated that Pilet maintained close relationships with his wife, siblings, and godson Shane Raimer, and made provisions for each of them through his will and other financial arrangements. The trial court inferred revocation from the absence of the original, the lack of evidence that the will was destroyed in Hurricane Katrina, and Pilet's failure to discuss the will for approximately ten years. The dissent concluded that the record contained no affirmative evidence that Pilet destroyed, directed the destruction of, or otherwise revoked the testament.
Procedural history
After Steve Anthony Pilet's death, Kathi McDonald petitioned to open or reopen the succession and submitted an unsigned copy of a purported will pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2853. The trial court determined that the testament had been revoked, and the majority affirmed. The dissent would have reversed and remanded for probate of the signed and notarized copy of the decedent's notarial testament.
Remand instructions
The dissent would reverse the trial-court ruling and remand with instructions to probate the signed and notarized copy of the decedent's notarial testament. The majority's operative disposition was affirmance.