IN THE MATTER OF THE SUCCESSION OF WILFRED JOSEPH NAQUIN, JR.
Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the
Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Case No. 100341
The Honorable Wilson E. Fields, Judge Presiding.
R. Callender Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Appellant
Wilfred James Naquin.
P. Landreneau Johanna R. Landreneau Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Counsel for Appellee Elizabeth Naquin.
BEFORE: GUIDRY, THERIOT, AND PENZATO, JJ.
appellant, Wilfred James Naquin, appeals the judgment of
possession of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court in the
Succession of Wilfred Joseph Naquin, Jr. For the following
reasons, we reverse the judgment and remand to the district
court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
decedent, Wilfred Joseph Naquin, Jr., died testate on May 17,
2015. In his last will and testament, he named his two
children, Wilfred James Naquin and Elizabeth Naquin, as the
sole universal legatees and the independent co-executors of
the entire estate. Wilfred and Elizabeth filed a petition to
probate the will and to be confirmed as co-independent
executors on October 28, 2015. An order of Probate and
letters of co-independent administration was signed by the
district court on November 2, 2015.
April 28, 2017, Elizabeth filed a petition for possession and
rule to show cause, claiming therein that no debts encumbered
the estate, and no further administration was necessary, but
that she and Wilfred had been unable to reach any agreement
on the division of the estate property. Elizabeth further
claimed that shortly after the decedent's death, Wilfred
moved into the decedent's home with his family, living
rent free. Elizabeth also alleged that Wilfred had
been farming on the property and keeping all of the profits
for himself. Elizabeth prayed that Wilfred show cause as to
why he should not show an accounting of his use of the
property and why he and Elizabeth should not be placed into
possession of their legacies in accordance with the will.
Elizabeth attached a sworn detailed descriptive list of the
estate to her petition.
filed an opposition to the petition for possession and rule
to show cause on June 20, 2017, wherein he claimed that, in
his capacity as co-legatee, he did not consent to the filing
of the petition. He also claimed that he was continuing the
operation of the farm as an unincorporated business that he
had run with the decedent, in which they shared profits and
losses equally. Wilfred further found discrepancies and
inaccuracies in Elizabeth's sworn detailed descriptive
list. He therefore filed a motion to traverse the sworn
detailed descriptive list on October 4, 2017. As a result,
Elizabeth filed an amended and supplemental sworn detailed
descriptive list on October 31, 2017.
hearing on the petition for possession and rule to show
cause, the district court signed a judgment of possession on
December 5, 2017, putting Wilfred and Elizabeth into
undivided, equal shares of the estate, and terminating the
succession. The judgment also stated that Wilfred and
Elizabeth waived their rights to demand a final accounting.
It is from this judgment that Wilfred has appealed.
cites three assignments of error:
1. The district court erred as a matter of law in ordering an
administered succession to possession at a contradictory
hearing before homologation of a final tableau of
distribution on the petition ...