Harvest Hills Christian Fellowship Church, Inc. VS Poplar Grove Helping Other People Endure, Inc., Dr. Stuart H. Freeman, Executive Director of Poplar Grove Helping Other People Endure, Inc.; Poplar Grove Chapel Missionary Baptist Church, Inc., Dr. Stuart Freeman Senior Pastor Poplar Grove Chapel Missiona
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2012 CA 2020 HARVEST HILLS CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP CHURCH INC VERSUS POPLAR GROVE HELPING OTHER PEOPLE ENDURE INC DR STUART H FREEMAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF POPLAR GROVE HELPING OTHER PEOPLE ENDURE INC POPLAR GROVE CHEIPEL MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH INC DR STUART H FREEMAN SENIOR PASTOR OF POPLAR GROVE CHAPEL MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH AND DR INC STUART H FREEMAN INDIVIDUALLY Judgment Rendered UN 20 On Appeal from the 19 Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Trial Court No C609870 The Honorable Wilson E Fields Judge Presiding Joseph A Prokop Jr Courtney King Humphrey Baton Rouge Louisiana Attorneys for Plaintiff Appellant Harvest Hills Christian Fellowship Church Inc Mark D Plaisance Attorney far Defendants Appellees Poplar Grove Helping Other People Endure Thibodaux Louisiana Inc Dr Stuart H Freeman Executive Director of Poplar Grove Helping Other People Endure Inc Poplar Grove Chapel Missionary Baptist Church Inc Dr Stuart H Freeman Senior Pastor of Poplar Grove Chapel Missionary Baptist Church Inc and Dr Stuart H Freeman Individually BEFORE GUIDRY CRAIN AND THERIOT JJ CRAIN J In this breach of contract claim the trial court granted exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action and dismissed the plaintiff petition s We affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Harvest Hills Christian Fellowship Church Inc filed suit against multiple defendants alleging one of the defendants Poplar Grove Helping Other People Endure Inc agreed to serve as a sponsor to facilitate the delivery of a fiscal legacy of one of George Daniels residual estate to Harvest Hills Because seventh the trial court acted on the defendants exception the facts are determined from the s plaintiff petition and documents annexed thereto George Daniels formed a personal friendship with Harvest Hills pastor Walter Smith and wanted to leave a testamentary bequest to Harvest Hills He instructed his attorney to prepare an amendment to his will to add Harvest Hills as a residual legatee however a complication arose when it was discovered that Harvest Hills did not have 501 tax exempt status 3 c Harvest Hi11s agreed to apply for tax exempt status but learned that the approval might take over six months Smith then approached another church s pastor Dr Stuart Freeman and asked if Freeman church could act as a fiscal s sponsor for Harvest Hills for the purpose of accepting the testamentary bequest made by Mr Daniels After some consideration Freeman agreed that Poplar Grove a tax exempt entity for which Freeman served as the executive director rather than his church would act as the fiscal sponsor and accept the bequest on behalf of and for the sole benefit of Harvest Hills The agreement was not in writing Upon learning of the arrangement Daniels executed a new last will and testament and bequeathed one of his residual estate to Poplar Grove seventh z After Daniels death Poplar Grove received an initial monetary distribution from the estate but failed to notify Harvest Hills of its receipt ofthe funds Efforts to contact Poplar Grove and Freeman were unsuccessful until Freeman ultimately told Smith that Poplar Grove was the intended recipient of the testamentary bequest The testamentary bequest to Poplar Grove is valued at an estimated 00 000 750 or more and is currently used for the benefit of Poplar Grove and s Freeman church Upon these allegations Harvest Hills asserts that Poplar Grove and Freeman failed to perform the obligation created by the oral agreement Harvest Hills requests damages and specific performance of the agreement namely the delivery of Daniel testamentary bequest s The defendants filed exceptions of no cause and no right of action arguing that the alleged agreement was a prohibited substitution under Louisiana Civil Code article 1520 and therefore had an unlawful cause and was not enforceable See La Civ Code arts 1966 1968 and 2030 The trial court granted the exceptions and dismissed the petition Harvest Hills appeals LAW AND ANALYSIS We first consider whether the trial court erred in granting the exception of no cause of action A of action refers to the operative facts which give rise to cause the plaintiff right to judicially assert the action against the defendant Scheffler v s Adams and Reese 1774 LLP 06 La 07 22 2 950 So 2d 641 646 The peremptory exception of no cause of action tests the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the petition Scheffler 950 So 2d at 646 An exception of no cause of action is triable on the face of the pleadings and for purposes of resolving the issues raised by the exception the well facts in the petition are accepted as true pleaded 1 s Freeman church Poplar Grove Chapel Missionary Baptist Church Inc is the only other defendant and is sued based on these same allegations 3 Because the exception raises a question of lae and the trial court decision is s based solely on the sufficiency oftihe petition review of the trial court ruling on s an exception of no cause of actiar is de neva Th pe question is whether in e tinent the light most fto the plain and w very doubt resolved in the vorable iff th s plaintiff favor the petition states an valid cause of action for relie Scheffler 950 So 2d at ra 646 Louisiana State Bar Ass v Carr Associates Inc 08 2114 La App 1 Cir 5 15 So 3d 158 167 writ denied 09 La 10 09 8 1627 09 30 21 So 3d 292 At the hearing the trial court expressed concern with whether the alleged agreement was an attempt to circumvent tax laws or defraud the government We do not base our decision on either of these reasons and express no opinion on their merit Instead we find that the object of the alleged agreement was the succession of a living person which makes the agreement unenfarceable under Louisiana Civil Code article 1976 Article 1976 provides in pertinent part The succession of a living person may not be the object of a contract other than an antenuptial agreement According to Comment b of the article L this Article a contract for the nder succession of a living person is null even if made with that person consent The s reason for this prohibition which can be traced back to the Code Napoleon and Roman Law was explained by one court as follows The Code establishes a public policy prohibi dlealing in the rights ing whose coming into existence require the death of a living erson Planiol says that a motrve behind the prohibition is the immorality of parties speculating an the deaths of another usually a relative or the danger of non havirzg obtained an interest in the death of a relatives living person considering crime to hasten its commission Henry R Liles v Bourgeois 517 So 2d 1078 1080 La App 3 Cir 1987 quoting trial conrt reasons and citing Planiol Civil Law Treatise Vol 2 Part 1 s 12 io west 19s9 4 This court previc apnlied Article 1 to declare a notarial act to be null usly 76 and void In Successions of Plummer Through Guttuso v Plummer 577 So 2d 751 La App 1 Cir 1991 writ denied 5 So 2d 676 La 1991 Plummer 0 executed an act of adoption whereby he pa to adopt his wife The motive rported originated wiYh a testamantary legacy that Plazrnmer was to r from t father ceive is However Plummer was terminal4 i and did nc t ouY his father so 1 texpe to live he adopted his wife as his daughter to steer a portion of the legacy to her through the principle of representation Relying in part on Article 1976 we held that the act of adoption was null and void explaining In executing the adoption of his wife James Robert Plummer was attempting to give one of his father succession while his sixth s father was still alive to his wife Sheila circumventing the explicit prohibition against the same in our civil code This we cannot allow Successions of Plummer 577 So 2d at 754 emphasis in original See also 55 Henry R Liles 517 So 2d at 1080 contingency fee contract was 1082 unenforceable where fee was based upon a percentage of the client future s inheritance from her living mother In the present case the petition establislhe ihat the object of the alleged aral agreement was one of the residual property fthe succession of a living seventh om person After Daniels death Poplar Grove aliegedly breached khis agreement by failing to remit the funds to Harvest Hills Accepting these allegations as true the object of the oral contract was a share of the succession of Daniels a living person at the time the agreement was entered T the alleged ageement is null and as h void and the trial court properly granted the exception of no cause of action See La Civ Code arts 1976 2030 Successions of Plummer 577 So 2d at 744 755 Henry R Liles 51 So 2d at 1080 Because the grounds far the exceprion 1082 cannot be removed by amending the petition the petition was properly dismissed See La Code of Civ Pro a 934 Pelacan Fduc Found Inc v Louisiana State rt s Bd of Elementary Secondary Educ 11 La App 1 Cir 6 97 So 2067 12 22 3d 440 450 51 The alleged contract is also deficient in two other respects that render it invalid The petition does not identify any advantage conferred upon Poplar Grove as the cause or consideration for entering the agreement Instead Yhe allegations suggest a gratuitous contract whereby Poplar Grove agreed to give the legacy to Harvest Hills See La Civ Code arts 1468 1910 An oral contract for a donation of a future legacy is null and void under Louisiana Civil Code article 1529 which prohibits a donation inter vivos of future property and Article 1541 which requires that a donation inter vivos be made by authentic act unless otherwise permitted by law No provision of law permits an oral donation inter vivos of this nature For these additional reasons the alleged agreement is null and void and the trial court properly granted the exception of no cause of action Z Accordingly we affirm the judgment of the trial court and assess all costs of this appeal ta Harvest Hi11s AFFIRMED z Because we affirm the granting of the exception of no cause of action and the dismissal of the petition we pretermit any review or ruling on the merit of the exception of no right of action 6
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.
