In The Matter of the Succession of James Brown
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LUUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2012 CA 0340 IN THE MATTER OF THE SUCCESSION OF JAMES BROWN Judgment Rendered B F 2 5 2013 On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Docket No 88 Section 27 291 The Honorable Todd W Hernandez Judge Presidzng Otha Curtis Baton Nelson Sr Rouge Louisiana Counsel for Plaintiff Appellant James Gray Christopher Washington Counsel for DefendantsiAppellees Ronald R Johnson Willie Eboni M Townsend Mae Roosevelt Franklin Brown and Effie Daisy Lee Brown Baton Rouge Louisiana BEFORE PARRO HUGHES AND WELCH JJ i tY di c C y 0 v14 nC HUGHES J This is an appeal by James Gray of a judgment rendered in favor of James Gray Roosevelt Brown and Effie Daisy Lee Brown For the following reasons we affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This appeal arises from a judgment rendered in the matter of the Succession of James Brown Mr Brown died intestate on May 30 2000 On June 24 2008 Mr James Gray obtained a judgment of possession recognizing him as the sole heir of James Brown and placing him in possession of the entire estate of James Brown He obtained that judgment ex parte upon the filing of a verified petition and an affidavit of death and heirship signed by him and his mother Immediately after the judgment was rendered Mr Gray instituted eviction proceedings against Ms Willie Mae Franklin who had been living in Mr Brown home since his death in 2000 s and claimed to be Mr Brown daughter s Ms Franklin filed a petition to annul the judgment of possession and for temporary preliminary and permanent injunction In those pleadings Ms Franklin disputed the facts set forth in Mr Gray petition and affidavit s and sought to annul the judgment of possession due to alleged fraud and ill practices on the part ofMr Uray Mr Gray filed an exception raising the objection of no right of action He argued that Ms Franklin lacked the legal interest necessary to bring the nullity action because she did not allege facts sufficient to establish that Mr Brown had either married her mother or formally acknowledged her as his daughter Thus Mr Gray concluded that Ms Franklin could not establish that she was an heir of Mr Brown with a right of action to oppose the judgment of possession 2 Ms Effie Daisy Lee Brown and Mr Roosevelt Brown subsequently joined in the nullity action and also claimed to be children of Mr Brown Willie Mae Effie and Roosevelt all disputed that Mr Gray was an heir of the decedent and alleged that Mr Gray had not provided the requisite proof either that his mother was marriea to Mr Brown or that Mr Brown had acknowledged him Subsequently Mr Gray exception of no right of action as to Ms s Franklin was sustained 2 He then filed a rule to show cause why he should not be placed into possession of Mr Brown estate s After a hearing a judgment was rendered wherein Mr Gray was again sent into possession of Mr Brown estate No action on Effie and Roosevelt petition to annul s s was taken and they then filed a petition to vacate the judgment of possession and to re the succession of James Brown A judgment was open rendered rethe succession opening A trial was held that resultzd in the final judgment before us on appeal which was signed on November 10 2011 Pursuant to that judgment James Gray Roosevelt Brown and Effie Daisy Lee Brown are all children and legal heirs of the decedent James Brown and entitled to share in the estate of James Brown In support of its findings the court stated in written reasons for judgment that Roosevelt and Ef6e had sufficiently proven that they were acknowledged by James Brown as he is listed on their birth certificates and he took no action to disavow them Mr Gray has appealed the judgment alleging that the trial court erred in finding that Roosevelt and Effie were heixs of Mr Brown Although Mr Although Ms Brown smiddle name is referred to as Daisy Lee throughout the record her birth cate certi lists her middle or second name as Desie Lee 2 The judgment on the exception was not appealed and Ms Franklin has not answered the instant appeal As such the court ruling on that issue is final and is not before us for review s 3 Gray did not prevail at the trial Mr Gray also assigns error to the trial s court failure to award him damages and attorney fees s LAW AND ANALYSIS The parties to this action claim to be the descendants and heirs of Mr Brown entitled to succeed to his properiv Sze LSA arts 88Q 888 and C 1096 There are three ways to prove the existence oft a parent child relationship under the Louisiana Civil Code 1 legitimate filiation 2 acknowledgment and 3 the institution of a legal proceeding to prove filiation See LSA arts 185 196 and 197 C Legitimate filiation exists vhen the znother husband is the parent of s the child and acknowledges the child as his own Under Article 185 a child born to a mother during her marriage to a man is presumed to be the child of the husband If the parents are not married a father must acknowledge his child in order to establish the relationship Louisiana Civil Code article 196 provides A man may by authentic act or by signing the birth certificate acknowledge a child not filiated to another man The acknowledgement creates a presumpti nthat the man who acknowledges the child is the father The presumption can be only on behalf of the child Except as otherwise provided in custody visitation and child support cases the acknowledgement does not create a presumption in favor of the man who acknowledges the child invoked Finally in the absence of a marriage between the parents or an acknowledgment by the father a child coulci establish filiation by virtue of a civil proceeding For purposes of succession a filiation proceeding is subject to a peremptive period of one year which commences to run from the date of death of the alleged father LSA art 197 C 3 Based on our conclusion herein we find no merit to this assignment of error 4 In this case Mr Gray submits that tihe mother of Roosevelt and Effe was never married to Mr Brown Further IZoosevelt and Effie did not institute a filiation proceeding Because iBrown died in 2000 well over tir one year ago they are time from dain so now barred g Thus Mr Gray argues that the only remaining znethod b which Roosevelt or Eifie could y prove filiation is by formal acknowledgment Under Article 196 a man may acknowledge his child by an authentic act in which he specifically acknowledges his paternity or by his signing the s child birth certificate as father LSA art 196 Revision Comments C 2005 Comment a An acknowledgment creates a presumption that he is the father and that presumption operates in favor of the child There is no time period during which an action to challenge the presumption of this Article must be instituted C LSA art 196 Revision Comnnents 2005 Comment d Certified copies of the birth certificates of Roosevelt and Effie were introduced at the trial See LSA 40 S R 42 Both birth certificates list James Brown as the father Even though Anticle 196 refers to signing the birth certificate the certificates of five birth issued by Lhe State of Louisiana introduced as evidence in this case do not contain signature lines They do contain certifications with the following language The above is a true certification of name and birth facts on file in the vital records registry of the State of Louisiana pursuant to LSA 40 et seq S R 32 The certificates of live birth naming James Brown as the father of Effie and Roosevelt stam with the seai of the Louisiana Department of ped Health and Hospitals and containing the signature of the State Registrar A second certificate of live birth introduced on behalf of Roosevelt Brown contains a slightly different certification and the names of the mother and father are hand written altlaough not specified as signatures 5 together with the testimony of Roosevalt that Effie was his sister and that James was their father were not rebutted at riaL We thus find no error in the trial court finding that Roosevelt and Bffe are heirs of the decedent s James Brown ONCLUSION c For the foregoing reasons the judgment on appeal is affirmed Costs of this appeal are assessed to the plaintiff Mr James Gray appellant AFFIRMED 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.
