Clay Crowell VS Andrew Thibodeaux, Succession of Clamae Prevost Crowell and Kristie McAdams
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2011 CA 2367 v C CLAY CROWELL VERSUS ANDREW THIBODEAUX SUCCESSION OF CLAMAE PREVOST CROWELL KRISTIE MCADAMS Judgment Rendered November 2 2012 Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Docket 1 524 Tumber 631 The Honorable Wilson Fields Judge Presiding Y kx4C k aF Y Thomas E Gibbs Baton Rouge 9 Counsel for Plaintiff Appellant Clay Crowell LA Thomas M Lockwood Counsel for Defendant Appellee Baton Andrew Thibodeaux Rouge LA P A Manint Baton Rouge William T Port Counsel for Defendant Appellee LA The Succession of John Crowell Kleinpeter Allen LA Counsel for Defendant Appellee Kristie Whitehead McAdams BEFORE WHIPPLE McCLENDON AND HIGGINBOTHAM JJ l c c1 CWtS J 1y lS S Y RPiIJf WHIPPLE J This matter is before us on appeal by plaintiff Clay Crowell from a judgment of the trial court dismissing his claims and rendering judgment in favor of defendants Andrew Thibodeaux and the Succession of John Crowell For the following reasons the judgment ofthe trial court is affumed FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY John and Clamae Crowell resided in Pride Louisiana on property that they owned for over forty years Clay Crowell is the only surviving child of 7ohn and Clamae Crowell According to John deposition testimony 7ohn and Clamae s entered an oral agreement with Andrew Thibodeaux to sell the property to Thibodeau for the purchase price of 48 According to John pursuant to 00 000 their agreement with Thibodeaux Thibodeaux paid the Crowells 48 and 00 000 was put in possession of the eastern half of the property while John and Clamae retained and exercised a lifetime usufruct over the western half of the property Clamae Crowell died intestate on May 6 1997 before the Crowells executed a formal act of sale with Thibodeaux On June 24 2002 John executed an Act of Cash Sale conveying his interest in the property to Thibodeaux and his wife Deborah Johnston Thibodeaiix for 48 and reserving a lifetime usufruct pursuant to their 00 000 earlier oral agreement On March 31 2004 Thibodeaux filed a petition in s Clamae succession proceeding against John as the administrator of Clamae s succession seeking a judgment compelling John to execute the documents necessary to convey Clamae interest in the property in accordance with the s The entire property consisted of three parcels of land identified by legal descriptions in the record herein For convenience we refer to same as property herein the As Z will be more fully shown the deposition was given in an eazlier proceeding in which the buyer sought to enforce his rights to perfect a sale against Clamae successon s 2 parties earlier oral agreement After a hearing judgment was rendered in s Clamae succession suit on May 18 2004 ordering John in his capacity as administrator of the Succession of Clamae Crowell to execute an act of sale or other conveyance for the purpose of formally conveying to Thibodeaux Clamae s interest in the property which they had earlier orally agreed to sell to Thibodeaux and for which Thibodeawc had previously paid the Crowells 48 On May 00 000 11 2004 before the rendition of the judgment John in his capacity as administrator of Clamae succession executed an Act of Cash Sale formally s conveying Clamae interest in the subject property to Thibodeaux and his wife s for 48 pursuant to their agreement with Thibodeaiix Shortly thereafter 00 000 John Crowell died testate on May 19 2004 On September 21 2004 Clay Crowell filed the suit giving rise to the instant appeal A separate proceeding entitled Petition to Annul Judgment and Set Aside Act of Sale named Andrew Thibodeaux the unopened Succession of Clamae Prevost Crowell and Kristie McAdams as defendants therein Clay filed an amended petition on October 10 2008 adding the Succession of Clamae Prevost Crowell as a plaintiff in the matter and fiu adding the Succession of ther John C Crowell as a defendant in the proceedings In his original petition Clay alleged that the May 18 2004 judgment in s Clamae succession proceedings and the May 11 2004 act of sale conveying s Clamae 3 succession proceeding was ffied in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for East Baton Rouge Parish and was assigned Probate Number 79794 A final judgment obtained by fraud or ill practices may be annulled LSA art P C 2004 However such a judgment is not an absolute nullity Thus to annul a judgment obtained by fraud or ill practices a direct action i a new and sepazate proceeding must be e brought for that purpose in the court which rendered the judgment Such a nullity may not be asserted collaterally Re Bank v Cabinet Works L C 2011 La App 5 Cir ions 748 12 10 492 So 3d 945 961 quoting Succession of Schulz 622 So 2d 693 695 La App 4 Cir 1993 writ denied 631 So 2d 1161 La 1994 Kristie S McAdams was identified in the petition as the surety of John Crowell s John 6 succession proceeding was filed in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for East Baton Rouge Parish and assigned Probate Number 84427 3 s Clamae interest in the property to 17iibodeaux should be annulled vacated and set aside for the following reasons a The Judgment was rendered based upon error fraud or ill practice b The Judgment was in errar as the testimony of Clamae Crowell was never adduced as required by law to corroborate her agreement to the alleged oral sale of the property to Andrew Thibodeaux c The deposition testimony of John Crowell claiming Clamae Crowell transferred her interest to the property to Andrew Thibodeaux by oral sale confected before her death is in direct contradiction of the facts asserted by John Crowell in the Detailed Descriptive List signed by him which identified the property as an asset of the Estate of Clamae Crowell as of November 23 2003 d Clamae Crowell did not receive the consideration stated in the Act of Sale e The Act of Sale should be vacated based on lesion beyond moiety fl Clay Crowell the sole surviving heir of his mother Clamae Prevost Crowell was an indispensable party to the proceeding g John Crowell and Andrew Thibodeaux contrived to deny Clay Crowell the inheritance of his mother h The Detailed Descriptive List was never amended i Clay Crowell was denied his right ofdue process by the failure of Andrew Thibodeaux and Jol Crowell as administrator to n provide him notice of the proceedings which resulted in the deprivation of the property classified in the Detailed Descriptive List as an asset of the Estate of his mother Clamae Prevost Crowell Thibodeawc responded by filing an answer and reconventional demand against Clay contending that Clay allegations of fraud were made without s probable cause causing Thibodeaux to be defamed for which Thibodeaux sought 4 an award of damages and attorney fees pursuant to LSA art 2004 s P C The matter was heard before the trial court herein on January 25 2011 At that time the parties entered the following stipulations that Kristie McAdams be dismissed from the proceedings that Clay Crowell is the sole surviving heir of John and Clamae Crowell and that John and Clamae Crowell exercised a usufiuct of the property at issue that was granted to them under the oral sale and subsequent cash sale which usufruct was exercised up until the time of their respective deaths Additionally Clay introduced a copy of the June 24 2002 act of sale from John Crowell to Thibodeaux a copy of the May ll 2004 act of sale from the Succession of Clamae Crowell to Thibodeaux a copy of the Succession of Clamae Crowell recard and a copy of the Succession of John CrowelP record Thibodeaw introduced the deposition testimony ofJohn Crowell After taking the matter under advisement on Apri120 2011 the trial court orally ruled in favor of the defendants Thibodeaux and the Succession of John Crowell adopting the defendants post trial brief as its reasons for judgment A written judgment was signed by the trial court on June 13 2011 which ordered that 1 Kristie Whitehead McAdams be dismissed from the proceedings with prejudice 2 all claims by plaintiff Clay Crowell against all other defendants in this proceeding be dismissed at plaintiff costs 3 all other claims made in this s proceeding be dismissed at the costs of the claimant making same and 4 the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2004 entitled Annulment for vices of substance peremption of action provides as follows A A final judgment obtained by fraud or ill practices may be annulled B An action to annul a judgment on these grounds must be brought witlun one year of the discovery by the plaintiff in the nullity action of the fraud or ill practices C The court may awazd reasonable attorney fees incurred by the prevailing party in an action to annul a judgment on these grounds 5 Clerk of Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge cancel and erase from the public records ofthe parish the inscription ofany Notice of Pendency ofAction or Notice of Lis Pendens filed or recorded in the public record by or on behalf of the plaintiff Clay Croweil pertaining to the real property at issue in this litigation which property was recognized as being owned by Andrew Thibodeaux Clay now appeals contending that the trial court erred in 1 failing to vacate ar nullify the May 11 2004 act of sale for lack of prior judicial authorization and proper notice 2 failing to vacate or nullify the act of sale signed on May 11 2004 by John Crowell as administrator and instead ratifying ar approving the alleged oral sale by Clamae Crowell of her community interest to Andrew Thibodeaux 3 failing to vacate or annul the judgment signed in Gamae Prevost CrowelPs succession proceeding which granted an order compelling John C Crowell to convey all the interest of Clamae Prevost Crowell in the property to Andrew Thibodeaiix based on ill practice and 4 dismissing s Clay damage claim against John Crowell as administrator of the succession of Clamae Crowell ACTION OF NULLITY Louisiana law provides for annulment of judgments Pursuant to LSA P C art 2004 a final judgment may be annulled if it was obtained by fraud or ill practices This article is not limited to cases of actual fraud or ill practices but is sufficiently broad to encompass all situations wherein a judgment is rendered through some improper practice or procedure Courts must review petitions for nullity closely as actions for nullity based on fraud or ill practices are not intended as substitutes for appeals or as second chances to prove claims previously denied for failure of proof The purpose of an action Although g Clay lists the date of the act of sale as May 4 2004 in his assignment of error in brief the date shown on the act of sale is actually May 11 2004 6 for nullity is to prevent injustice that cannot be corrected through new trials and appeals Belle Pass Terminal Inc v Jolin Inc 2001 La 10 800 0149 Ol 16 So 2d 762 766 The two criteria for determining whether a judgment has been rendered through fraud or ill practices and is subject to nullification are 1 whether circumstances under which the judgment was rendered show the deprivation of legal rights of the litigant seeking relief and 2 whether enforcement of the judgment would be unconscionable or inequitable Belle Pass Terminal Inc v Jolin Inc 800 So 2d at 766 IIl practice is any improper practice or procedure which operates even innocently to deprive a litigant of some legal right The legal righY ofwhich a litigant must be deprived to have a judgment annulled includes the right to appear and assert a defense and the right to a fair and impartial trial Morton Building Inc v Redeeming Word of Life Church 1837 2001 La App 1 Cir 10 835 Sa 2d 685 689 writ denied 2002 02 16 2733 La 1 836 So 2d 46 03 24 DISCUSSION Assignment of Error Number One Clay first contends that his father as administratar of his mother s succession acted improperly in that he failed to obtain judicial approval prior to executing the act of sale and failed to comply with LSA articles 3281 and P C 3282 y As such he contends that the trial court herein erred in failing to nullify Louisiana 9 Code of Civil Procedure article 3281 provides A A succession representative who desires to sell succession property at private sale shall file a petition setting forth a description of the property the price and conditions of and the reasons for the proposed sale If an agreement to sell has been executed in accordance with Paragraph B of this Article a copy of such agreement shall be annexed to the petition B A succession representative may execute without prior court authority an agreement to sell succession property at private sale subject to the suspensive condition that the court approve the proposed sale 7 the May 11 2004 act of sale for lack of prior judicial authorization and proper notice Clay contends that because the act of sale was signed on May 11 2004 e ibefore the trial court in Clamae succession signed the judgment on May 18 s 2004 ordering John to sign an act of sale to convey Clamae interest in the s property to Thibodeaux the act of sale was invalid as it was not authorized by the trial court and the trial court herein erred in failing to so recognize We disagree The fact that the act of sale was executed after the third purchaser party filed his petition against the succession but before the trial court therein actually ordered the succession representative to effectuate the sale thereby renders the judgment improper as one obtained by fraud or ill practices because the sale when perfected was not approved by a court By ordering the succession representative to execute the formal act of sale or to confect an act of sale the court in the succession proceeding obviously approved such a sale as the trial court in these proceedings obviously recognized Moreover we find Clay s argument and the cases relied upon in support of it concerning the deleterious effects that may result when a succession representative elects to sell succession C The succession representative shall be obligated to file a perition in accordance with Paragraph A of this Article within thirty 30 days of date the of execution of such an agreement to sell Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 3282 provides that Notice of the application for authority to sell succession property at private sale shall be published at least once far movable property and at least twice for immovable property in the manner provided by law A court order shall not be required for the publication of the notice The notice shall be published in the parish in which the succession proceeding is pending When immovable property situated in another parish is to be sold the notice shall also be published in the pazish in which the property is situated When movable property situated in another parish is to be sold the notice may be published also in the parish in which the property is situated without necessity of a court order for the publication however the court may order the notice to be published in the parish where the movable property is situated The notice shall state that any opposition to the proposed sale must be filed within seven days from the date of the last publication 8 property without court authorization unpersuasive and irrelevant as the facts are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case Here the trial court in s Clamae succession rendered judgment ordering John as administrator of s Clamae succession to effectuate or otherwise execute a sale of Clamae s interest in the property to a third purchaser after the third purchaser party party had filed a petition against Clamae succession specifically to force the sale s s Clay argument that the sale should now be set aside in these proceedings because John did not have court authorization to follow an order pursuant to a judgment of a court is meritiess considering that the succession representative additionally has a fiduciary duty to manage the property of the succession in accordance with the law i a direct order of the court See LSA art e P C 3191 Further to the extent that Clay contends that the act of sale should be nullified for lack of proper notice we note that generally in the absence of a showing of fraud or ill practice by the purchaser private sale by order of the court in a succession proceeding will not be disturbed Succession of Lewis 440 So 2d 899 904 La App 2 Cir 1983 writ denied 443 So 2d ll 19 La 1984 In Succession of Lewis when the absent heirs of a succession challenged a private sale to a third party that was ordered by the trial court and where the trial court failed to appoint an attorney to represent the absent heirs in connection with the sale the appellate court held that a third purchaser does not ha to look party e behind the judicial order commanding the sale to determine the truth of the facts upon which the court has acted but need only be satisfied that the court has jurisdiction Succession of Lewis 440 So 2d at 904 citing Pete v Estate of Pete 253 So 2d 650 La App 3 Cir 1971 The court further held that the court order to sell protects a bona fide purchaser from any irregularities contained in the proceeding Succession of Lewis 440 So 2d at 904 Thus to the extent that 9 Clay contends that the judgment ordering the sale should be set aside because he was not afforded notice of the sale inasmuch as the sale was ordered by the court in the succession proceeding the judgment ordering the sale cannot be disturbed absent fraud or ill practices which Clay has failed to establish on the record before us Accordingly we find no merit to Clay first assignment of error s Assignment of Error Number Two Clay next contends that the trial court in Clamae succession erred in s failing to vacate or nullify the May 11 2004 act of sale and instead ratifying ar approving the alleged oral sale by Clamae To the extent that Clay challenges the merits of the legal findings upon which the court in the succession proceeding based its judgment we note that a court consideration of law even if done s erroneously can in no way be construed as an ill practice Lieber v Caddo Levee District Board of Commissioners 32 La App 2 Cir 12 748 551 99 8 So 2d 587 591 writ denied 2000 La 4 759 So 2d 763 cert 0561 00 7 denied 531 U 928 121 S Ct 306 148 L246 2000 S 2d Ed Further an action for nullity cannot be substituted for a defense on the merits or a timely appeal Meldean Inc v Rivers 410 So 2d 837 840 La s App 3 Cir writ denied 414 So 2d 376 La 1982 Judgments rendered contrary to law are subject to reversal on appeal but are not thereby subject to an action for nullity Lew v Stel 254 So 2d 665 667 La App 4 Cir 1971 writ denied 260 La 403 256 So 2d 289 1972 Thus we also find no merit to this assignment oferror Assignment of Error Number Three In his third assignment of error Clay contends that the trial court herein erred in failing to vacate or annul the May 18 2004 judgment rendered by the court in Clamae succession s on the basis of ill 10 practice Specifically Clay contends that because he was not served with the lawsuit by Thibodeaux and was not afforded notice of the sale Thibodeaux and John conspired to pull a one fast on him depriving him of an opportunity to oppose the sale which he contends is tantamount to an ill practice Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 734 provides that when suit is brought against a succession the proper party to name is the succession representative Notably the heirs or legatees of the deceased are not required to be joined as parties P C LSA art 734 Mareover Louisiana law recognizes that a creditar of a succession under administration may submit his claim to the succession representative for acknowledgment and payment in due course of administration LSA art 3241 A succession representative P C has a fiduciary duty with respect to the succession and has the duty of collecting preserving and managing the property of the succession in accordance with law LSA art 3191 P C Considering that service upon Clay ofnotice of Thibodeaux ssuit against s Clamae succession was not required we are unable to conclude that s Thibodeaux failure to serve Clay or otherwise provide notice to Clay of his suit against Clamae succession constitutes an practice In accordance s ill with the articles set forth above Thibodeaux representative John through his attorney of recard served the succession The matter was heard before the trial court in the succession proceedings and the court therein ordered John as the succession representative to execute the sale Any failure by John Louisiana 10 Code of Civil Procedure article 734 provides as follows Except as otherwise provided by law including but not limited to Articles 2641 and 2674 the succession representative appointed by a court of this state is the proper defendant in an action to enforce an obligation of the deceased or of his succession while the latter is under administration The heirs or legatees of the deceased whether present or represented in the state or not need not be joined as parties whether the action is personal real or mised Emphasis added 11 to execute the documents necessary to complete or effectuate the sale in accordance with the trial court order would then be a breach of his fiduciary s duty to manage the succession property in accordance with law See LSA P C art 3191 As set forth above the two criteria for determining whether a judgment has been rendered tl fraud or ill practices and is subject to nullification are 1 rough whether circumstances under which the judgment was rendered showed the deprivation of legal rights of the litigant seeking relief and 2 whether enforcement of the judgment would be unconscionable or inequitable Belle Pass Terminal Inc v Jolin Inc 800 So 2d at 766 Neither of these criteria are estabiished herein We do not find that Clay was required to receive notice of Thibodeaux s suit in Clamae succession proceeding nor do we find that enforcement of the s judgment rendered in Clamae succession proceeding would be unconscionable s ar inequitable under the facts of this case Instead after thorough review of the entire record herein we find that Clay has failed to establish any acts of fraud or ill practices requiring that the May 18 2004 judgment of the trial court be annulled We find no merit to this assignment of error Assignment of Errar Number Four In his final assignment of error Clay contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his damage claim against Jolui as administrator of the succession of Clamae Ha found no error in the judgment of the trial court dismissing ing s Clay petition for nullity we likewise find no error in the trial court dismissal s of Clay damage claim against John Crowell as administrator of the succession s of Clamae Crowell This assignment also lacks merit 12 CONCLUSION For the above and faregoing reasons the June 13 2011 judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed Costs of this appeal are assessed to the appellant plaintiff Clay Crowell AFFIRMED 13 STATE OF LOUYSIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2011 CA 2367 CLAY CROWELL VERSUS ANDREW THIBODEAUX CROWELL SUCCESSION OF CLAMAE PREVOST KRISTIE MCADAMS McCLENDON J concurs and assigns reasons Given the procedural history presented I am bound to concur with the result reached by the majority I write separately to note that the trial court in the Succession of C Prevost Crowell proceedings erroneously ordered John amae C Crowell to execute an Act of Sale quitclaim or other such conveyance to transfer Mrs Crowell interest in the property at issue to Andrew Thibodeaux s I Clearly the requirements set forth in LSA art 1839 to affect an oral transfer C of immovable property were not met However an appeal was not taken from said judgment and an action for nullity based on fraud or ill practices is not intended as a substitute for an appeal See Wright v Louisiana Power Light 06 La 3 951 So 1058 1068 Further I cannot say that 1181 07 9 2d the record is sufficient to establish fraud or ill practice on the part of Mr Thibodeaux
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.
