Succession of Josephine Burgess Robinson

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2023 CA 0302

SUCCESSION OF JOSEPHINE BURGESS ROBINSON

Judgment Rendered: FEB 212024

On Appeal from the
21st Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of Livingston
l(
State of Louisiana
Trial Court No. 17844

Honorable Erika Sledge, Judge Presiding

Michael A. Betts Attorney for Appellant,
Denham Springs, LA Barbara J. Robinson

D. Blayne Honeycutt Attorneys for Appellee,
Hannah H. Calandro Charles Anthony Lee
Denham Springs, LA

BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ.

RESTER, J.

In this succession proceeding, Barbara Robinson appeals the trial court

judgment ordering her to pay sanctions pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 863 to

Charles Lee. For the following reasons, we vacate the portion of the judgment

imposing sanctions and remand for further proceedings.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Josephine Burgess Robinson died intestate on December 18, 2018. She had

five children: Barbara Robinson, Wanda Robinson Lee, Madelyn Robinson, Josef

Robinson, and Jasmine Robinson. On October 29, 2020, Barbara Robinson filed a

Petition for Possession stating that Wanda Lee predeceased Josephine Robinson and

had no children. She further stated that the remaining children are the only heirs of

the deceased and are entitled to ownership of all the property belonging to the

succession of Josephine Robinson equally and indivision. On November 5, 2020, a

Judgment of Possession was rendered recognizing Barbara Robinson, Madelyn

Robinson, Josef Robinson, and Jasmine Robinson as the sole heirs of the succession

of Josephine Robinson and sending them into possession of an equal, undivided

ownership over all the property belonging to the estate of Josephine Robinson. That

same day, an order was signed recognizing Barbara Robinson as the Executrix of the

Succession of Josephine Robinson.

On December 14, 2020, Charles Lee, the surviving spouse of Wanda Lee,

filed a " Petition to Nullify Judgment of Possession, to Issue Temporary Restraining

Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Permanent Injunction, and for Costs and

Attorney Fees." In his petition, Charles Lee contended that the November 5, 2020

judgment of possession was obtained by fraud and/ or ill practices because it was

procured through the perjured testimony of Barbara Robinson. Specifically, Charles

Lee asserted that in the petition for possession, Barbara Robinson falsely stated that

Wanda Lee predeceased Josephine Robinson. Charles Lee attached the Certified

2

Death Certificate of Wanda Lee showing that Wanda Lee passed on May 10, 2020,

which was after the death of Josephine Robinson on December 18, 2018. Charles

Lee alleged that Wanda Lee died testate, leaving the entirety of her estate to him,

and that if it were not for the perjured testimony of Barbara. Robinson, the Estate of

Wanda Lee would not have been deprived of the portion of Josephine Robinson' s

estate to which it is entitled. Further, Charles Lee alleged that after notifying counsel

for the succession of this issue, he was sent a " 30 day Notice to Vacate" letter alerting

him that a probate was filed on Josephine Robinson' s behalf and the ownership of

the property where he currently resides, 421 Central Street, that was previously

owned by Josephine Robinson had been transferred to Josephine Robinson' s heirs.

Charles Lee requested a temporary restraining order prohibiting the heirs of

Josephine Robinson from disturbing him, his property, and his residence.

In his petition, Charles Lee also contended that Josef Robinson and Jasmine

Robinson were allegedly adopted by Josephine Robinson, but no proof of the

adoption was submitted to the court, " which could thereby cause the Judgment of

Possession to further be rendered under fraudulent pretenses." On March 26, 2021,

Charles Lee amended his petition to request that the court revoke Barbara

Robinson' s appointment as Executrix of the Succession.

4n March 30, 2021, the parties entered a Stipulated Judgment ordering

Barbara Robinson to amend all necessary pleadings to cure the deficiency of

omitting Wanda Lee as an heir to the property of Josephine Robinson; ordering

Barbara Robinson to provide proof that Josephine Robinson successfully adopted

Josef Robinson and Jasmine Robinson; issuing a temporary restraining order

enjoining Barbara Robinson and the other heirs from disturbing Charles Lee' s

property and residence at 421 Central Street; and reserving Charles Lee' s claims for

court costs and attorney fees for trial.

3

The trial on attorney fees and costs was held on November 12, 2021. After

the trial, the trial court issued Reasons for Judgment, finding that the testimony at

trial clearly established that Barbara Robinson knew that her sister, Wanda Lee, had

not predeceased her mother and that Wanda Lee was married to Charles Lee at the

time of her death. The trial court ruled that the November 5, 2020 judgment of

possession be annulled due to ill practice; that Charles Lee be awarded court costs

in the amount of $2, 161. 53 and attorney fees in the amount of $5, 200. 00; that

Barbara Robinson be removed as the administrator of the Estate of Josephine

Robinson for failure to act as a prudent administrator; and that Madelyn Robinson

be appointed as the administrator of the Estate of Josephine Robinson, without bond.

A judgment in conformance with the trial court' s ruling was signed on January 19,

2022.

Thereafter, Barbara Robinson filed a motion for new trial, contending that the

January 19, 2022 judgment was clearly contrary to the law and failed to consider

several factors. Charles Lee opposed the motion for new trial and requested

sanctions, contending that Barbara Robinson' s motion for new trial was frivolous

and violated three of the four affirmative duties in La. Code Civ. P. art. 863. In his

motion, Charles Lee argued that Barbara Robinson failed to provide any justification

that the January 19, 2022 judgment was contrary to law and failed to cite any law in

her motion.

The matter was set for April 11, 2022, but was continued due to the health of

Barbara Robinson' s counsel. It was subsequently reset for August 15, 2022. an

August 12, 2022, counsel for Barbara Robinson requested that the hearing be

continued through a written motion. The trial court denied the request for a

continuance, and Barbara Robinson' s motion for new trial and Charles Lee' s request

for sanctions were heard without Barbara Robinson or her counsel in attendance.

After a brief hearing, the trial court denied Barbara Robinson' s motion for new trial,

4

granted Charles Lee' s request for sanctions, and ordered Barbara Robinson to pay

Charles Lee $ 2, 500. 00 in sanctions and $ 264. 42 in additional costs. A judgment

was signed in conformance with her ruling on September 21, 2022. It is from the

September 21, 2022 judgment that Barbara Robinson appeals, contending that the

trial court erred in awarding sanctions because the motion for new trial did not

violate the requirements of La. Code Civ. P. art. 863, and the trial court did not

describe the sanctionable conduct or explain the basis for the imposition of sanctions

as required by La. Code Civ. P, art. 863( G). Barbara Robinson did not challenge the

trial court' s denial of her motion for new trial.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 863 authorizes a court to impose

sanctions upon an attorney, or a represented party, who signs pleadings without

making an objective reasonable inquiry into the facts and the law. Bourgeois v.

Bourgeois, 2023- 0038 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9113113), 135 So -3d 1, 5. writ not

considered, 2013- 2439 ( La. 1/ 27114), 130 So. 3d 954. To impose sanctions, a trial

court must find that one of the affirmative duties imposed by Article 863 has been

violated. Bourgeois, 135 So. 3d at 6. Article 863 provides, in pertinent part:

B. Pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit or
certificate, except as otherwise provided by law, but the signature of an
attorney or party shall constitute a certification by him that he has read
the pleading, and that to the best of his knowledge, information, and
belief formed after reasonable inquiry, he certifies all of the following:

1)The pleading is not being presented for any improper purpose, such
as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of
litigation.

2) Each claim, defense, or other legal assertion in the pleading is
warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the
extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.

3) Each allegation or other factual assertion in the pleading has
evidentiary support or, for a specifically identified allegation or factual
assertion, is likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable

opportunity for further investigation or discovery.

5

4) Each denial in the pleading of a factual assertion is warranted by the
evidence or, for a specifically identified denial, is reasonably based on
a lack of information or belief

With regard to the imposition of sanctions, Article 863 further provides:

D. If, upon motion of any party or upon its own motion, the court
determines that a certification has been made in violation of the
provisions of this Article, the court shall impose upon the person who
made the certification or the represented party, or both, an appropriate
sanction which may include an order to pay to the other party the
amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the
pleading, including reasonable attorney fees.

E. A sanction authorized in Paragraph D shall be imposed only after a
hearing at which any party or his counsel may present any evidence or
argument relevant to the issue of imposition of the sanction.

G. If the court imposes a sanction, it shall describe the conduct
determined to constitute a violation of the provisions of this Article and
explain the basis for the sanction imposed.

Article 863( G) mandates a court imposing sanctions to describe the conduct

the court determined to constitute a violation of Article 863 and explain the basis for

the sanctions imposed. See La. R.S. 1: 3, (" The word `shall' is mandatory"). During

the brief hearing, the trial court noted the motions before the court, including the

motion for new trial and the request for sanctions. The trial court concluded, " I have

read all the motions. Considering that there' s no opposition, I' m going to deny the

motion for new trial." The trial court then asked counsel for Charles Lee the amount

of attorney fees that were expended in preparation, and Charles Lee' s attorney

responded. The trial court then stated, " I' m going to award attorney fees as sanctions

as requested in your motion in the amount of $2, 500." The judgment provides that

Charles Anthony Lee' s request for sanctions be and is hereby GRANTED."

The trial court did not describe the conduct it determined to constitute a

violation of Article 863 or explain the basis for the sanctions imposed in the oral

reasons for judgment or in the judgment. Since the trial court failed to explain the

basis for the imposition of sanctions, this court cannot determine what affirmative

duties imposed by Article 863 the trial court found Barbara Robinson to have

violated.' Although Article 863 does not prescribe the specific consequence that

will follow from the trial court' s non- compliance with Article 863( G), we conclude

that the most appropriate action is to vacate that portion of the judgment which

imposed sanctions and remand the matter to the trial court to describe the conduct it

determined to constitute a violation of the provisions of the Article and explain the

basis for the sanction imposed as required by Article 863( G).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the September 21, 2022 judgment is vacated insofar

as it imposed sanctions, and the matter is remanded for the trial court to comply with

La. Code Civ. P. art. 863( G).2 All costs of the appeal are divided evenly between

Appellant, Barbara Robinson, and Appellee, Charles Lee.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

This case is distinguishable from Molinere v. Lapeyrouse, wherein the trial court explicitly
adopted the memorandum of the exceptor stating, "[ T] he exceptions and request for sanctions are
well -taken and should be GRANTED ... for reasons exceptors assigned in brief and attached
hereto, which the Court adopts as its reasons." ( Emphasis in original.) Molinere v. Lapeyrouse,
2016- 0991 ( La. App. lst Cir. 21] 7/ 17), 214 So. 3d 887, 895.

Z The denial of the motion for new trial was not before this court on appeal.

7