Deano & Deano, Inc. and Robert M. Green VS Succession of Noel Ricks Through Its Executrix, Aleta Ricks
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2008 CA 1782 DEANO DEANO INC AND ROBERT M GREEN VERSUS SUCCESSION OF NOEL RICKS AND ALETA RICKS Judgment Rendered APR 1 4 2010 Appealed from the 22nd Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St Tammany Louisiana Case No 2003 10578 The Honorable Richard A Schwartz Judge Presiding Malcolm B Robinson Jr Metairie Louisiana Counsel for PlaintiffsAppellees Deano Deano Inc and Robert M Green William M Magee Counsel for DefendantAppellant Patrice W Oppenheim Covington Louisiana Succession of Noel Ricks BEFORE KUHN GUIDRY AND GAIDRY JJ 7 GAIDRY J In this suit on open account the Succession of Noel Ricks appeals a judgment ordering it to pay for legal services purportedly provided to it by plaintiffs We affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 4 2003 the law firm of Deano Green collectively plaintiffs Succession of Noel Ricks Deano and Robert M filed a suit on an open account against the the Succession through its testamentary executrix Aleta Ricks and also against Aleta Ricks individually The petition alleged that the Succession owed plaintiffs 32 plus interest 94 761 and attorney sfees for legal services rendered by plaintiffs for the benefit of the estate The petition alternatively averred that Alita Ricks was personally liable to plaintiffs for any portion of the debt that was not a succession debt Aleta Ricks filed a reconventional demand on September 25 2003 in which she stated that as executrix of the Succession she hired the plaintiffs to perform legal work for the Succession On March 2 2005 the plaintiffs filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment seeking to have the court declare which of the professional legal services rendered by the plaintiffs were rendered for the benefit of the Succession and the testamentary executrix and which services were rendered for the benefit of Aleta Ricks personally On December 21 2006 plaintiffs filed a motion to determine the status of the succession debt seeking to have the court determine what percentage of the services performed by plaintiffs are debts of the Succession of Noel Ricks incurred by Aleta Ricks in her capacity as Executrix A hearing was held on this motion on November 12 2007 after which the court rendered judgment on April 23 2008 in favor of plaintiffs 2 and against the Succession decreeing that the Succession was indebted to the plaintiffs for all of the professional legal services rendered by plaintiffs with the exception of the charges associated with the filing of the motion to withdraw The Succession appealed assigning the following trial court errors The Trial Court erred in failing to recognize that plaintiffs failed to prove a written contract existed with a duly authorized representative of the Succession The Trial Court erred in failing to recognize that plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of an oral contract in excess of 00 500 existed with a duly authorized representative of the Succession The Trial Court erred in holding that Aleta Ricks was authorized to incur debts on behalf of the Succession during the entirety of the time for which plaintiff sought recovery of fees and expenses The Trial Court erred in holding that the actions of the plaintiffs benefited the Succession without evidence of same In an unpublished decision rendered July 31 2009 we held that the plaintiffs carried their burden of proving an oral contract in excess of five hundred dollars by the testimony of Robert Green and the statement in Aleta s Rick reconventional demand that she hired the plaintiffs to perform legal work for the benefit of the Succession However because the judgment appealed from was not precise definite and certain the matter was remanded to the trial court so that a proper judgment could be rendered See Deano Deano Inc v Succession of Ricks 2008 1782 La 1 Cir App 09 31 7 2009 WL 2351717 An amended judgment was rendered on September 10 2009 in favor of the plaintiffs and against the Succession in the amount of 32 plus legal interest We now address the remaining 94 586 assignments of error i e whether the court erred in holding that Aleta Ricks 3 was authorized to incur debts on behalf of the Succession during the entirety of the time for which the plaintiffs sought recovery of fees and expenses and whether the court erred in holding that the actions of the plaintiffs benefited the Succession DISCUSSION According to the testimony of Mr Green at the hearing on this matter Aleta Ricks was initially appointed executrix in accordance with the terms of the will in 2001 When she was removed as executrix in 2002 by default judgment she hired Mr Green to have her reinstated as testamentary executrix which he accomplished through his representation Where legal representation is primarily for the personal benefit of the executor and not the estate attorney fees may not be paid from the s property of the succession Whether or not an attorney work was for the s benefit of the succession is a question of fact that cannot be set aside absent manifest error In re Succession of Brazan 07 566 p La 5 Cir 8 App 07 27 12 975 So 53 57 The trial court obviously determined that the 2d legal services required to have the testamentary executrix restored to the position were performed for the benefit of the Succession After a thorough review of the record we cannot say that the trial court conclusion was s manifestly erroneous CONCLUSION The amended judgment in favor of Deano and Deano Inc and Robert M Green and against the Succession of Noel Ricks is affirmed This memorandum opinion is issued in compliance with La URCA Rule 2 1 Mr Green testified that after he succeeded in having Aleta Ricks reinstated as testamentary executrix he withdrew from the representation due to nonpayment of his fees Some time after his withdrawal Aleta Ricks was again removed as testamentary executrix El 13 1 16 Costs of this appeal are to be borne by the Succession of Noel Ricks AFFIRMED
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
