In The Matter of the Succession of Janet Jeffrey Phillips (2009CA1751 Consolidated With 2009CA1752)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2009 CA 1751 IN THE MATTER OF THE SUCCESSION OF JANET JEFFREY PHILLIPS 0 CONSOLIDATED WITH NO 2009 CA 1752 IN THE MATTER OF THE SUCCESSION OF CAREY A PHILLIPS Judgment Rendered June 11 2010 Appealed from the 23rd Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Ascension State of Louisiana Case No 13987 c 14130 w The Honorable Ralph Tureau Judge Presiding Anthony T Marshall Counsel for Appellants Gonzales Louisiana Eric Williams Kim Williams Stanley Phillips Stella Clinton and Barry Williams Ben R Miller Jr Scott D Huffstetler Baton Rouge Louisiana Counsel for Appellees Successions of Janet Jeffrey Phillips and Carey A Phillips BEFORE DOWNING GAIDRY AND McCLENDON JJ kmnj GAIDRY J In this matter five out of sixteen legatees appeal a trial court judgment homologating the revised final accounting and ordering the legatees to restore to the succession money received by them to which they were not entitled We affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This matter involves a dispute over the statutory testaments of Carey A Phillips who died on July 6 2005 and Janet Jeffrey Phillips who died on December 8 2005 Letitia Lowe Ardoin the Phillips certified public accountant and Francis Z Williams a relative of the Phillips were appointed as independent coexecutors as provided for in the testaments The successions which both named the same sixteen equal legatees were consolidated on March 29 2006 On June 20 2007 the first annual accounting of the independent co executors was homologated with no opposition filed by any of the legatees On October 19 2007 the independent coexecutors filed a petition for final accounting and for possession Legatees Eric Williams and Kim Williams filed a rule to traverse the final accounting on November 2 2007 requesting a new detailed final accounting on the grounds that the accounting by the independent coexecutors was insufficient and lacked any detailed and supporting documentation On December 18 2007 the court homologated the final account and placed the universal legatees in possession of one sixteenth of the remaining property noting that the opposition of Eric Williams and Kim Williams had been resolved and no other oppositions had been filed On December 15 2008 the independent coexecutors filed an amended petition for amended final accounting due to an error in the final 2 accounting which resulted in an overpayment to each of the legatees of 36 547 11 The independent coexecutors filed a rule to show cause why the legatees who had been inadvertently overpaid should not return the funds which they had no right to receive Legatees Eric Williams Kim Williams Stanley Phillips Stella Clinton and Barry Williams collectively the opposing legatees filed an opposition to the amended accounting and asked the court to defer ruling on the amended final accounting until the legatees could have an independent accounting done to make sure that the estate was administered properly At a February 2 2009 hearing on the matter the opposing legatees told the court that they were not trying to get out of repaying any amount they owed but were only asking the court to allow them to have an independent accounting prior to the legatees being ordered to repay the money Accordingly an independent certified public accountant was appointed to review the final accounting that accountant confirmed that the amended final accounting was correct and that the legatees received funds to which they were not entitled Another hearing was held on April 6 2009 at which the opposing legatees argued that even though the independent accountant confirmed that the amended accounting was correct they were still opposed to the homologation of the amended accounting because they were not given access to all ofthe supporting documentation The court noted that the opposing legatees had requested an independent accounting and had received an independent accounting Based upon that independent accounting and the other evidence before it the court homologated the amended final accounting and ordered the legatees to restore to the Successions the funds they received in excess of the amount to which they were entitled This appeal followed ki DISCUSSION On appeal the opposing legatees argue that the court erred in homologating the final accounting without allowing them to review detailed financial records of the succession However a review of the applicable law reveals that the legatees were not entitled to this sort of detailed accounting Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 3333 provides that when an accounting is requested by legatees it shall show the money and other property received by and in the possession of the succession representative at the beginning of the period covered by the account the revenue other receipts disbursements and disposition of property during the period and the remainder in his possession at the end of the period Positive and direct proof of every item is not required See Succession of Wederstrandt 19 Ann La 494 La 1867 Accordingly the coexecutors accounting is satisfactory and the court did not err in homologating the amended final accounting and ordering the legatees to repay money to which they were not entitled CONCLUSION The judgment of the trial court is affirmed Costs of this appeal are assessed to the appellants Eric Williams Kim Williams Stanley Phillips Stella Clinton and Barry Williams AFFIRMED 2 STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CA 1751 IN THE MATTER OF THE SUCCESSION OF JANET JEFFREY PHILLIPS CONSOLIDATED WITH 2009 CA 1752 IN THE MATTER OF THE SUCCESSION OF CAREY A PHILLIPS McCLENDON J concurs and assigns reasons Given that the opposing legatees requested and received an independent accounting I concur with the result reached by the majority However I disagree with the majority analysis to the extent that the opinion seems to bar s the ability of legatees to investigate representations made in the final accounting of successions
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.
