Succession of Robert Edwards, Sr.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

09-175

SUCCESSION OF ROBERT EDWARDS SR.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 47,186
HONORABLE TODD S. CLEMONS, JUDGE PRO TEMPORE

**********

ELIZABETH A. PICKETT
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Marc T. Amy, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and J. David Painter, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Painter, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.

Timothy O'Dowd
Attorney at Law
921 Ryan St., Suite D
Lake Charles, LA 70601
Counsel for Appellee:
Anita Dejean

Robert Michael McHale Jr.
Attorney at Law
631 Kirby Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
Counsel for Appellant:
Mary Audrey Edwards

PICKETT, J.

Mary Audrey Edwards, the wife of the decedent, Robert (NMI) Edwards Sr.,

appeals a judgment of the trial court denying her petition to probate the purported last

will and testament of her husband and finding that testament, which was executed on

June 8, 2007, null and void for lack of the decedent’s capacity to execute the same.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

FACTS

Robert Edwards Sr. died on January 12, 2008. On January 28, 2008, his

daughter Anita Dejean, filed a petition to be named administratrix of her deceased

father’s succession. In her petition, she noted that a will in the name of “Robert

Edwards” had been filed in the records of Calcasieu Parish but had not been presented

for probate. She prayed to be named administratrix “on information and belief the

decedent died intestate.” On January 30, 2008, Ms. Dejean filed a document in the

succession proceeding captioned “Opposition to the Probate of the Purported Last

Will and Testament of Robert Edwards Dated June 8, 2007.” In the “opposition”

document, Ms. Dejean stated three grounds for the basis of her opposition: 1) that at

the time the will was executed, the decedent lacked the capacity to perfect a will; 2)

that the purported will was the result of undue influence on the part of Mary Audrey

Edwards, the decedent’s then wife; and/or 3) that the signature on the purported will

is not that of the decedent.

Mary Audrey Edwards, the widow of the deceased, filed a “Petition for Probate

of Statutory Testament and Appointment of Executrix and Opposition to Petition for

Homologation of Final Account.”

1

In due course, on October 16, 2008, a hearing was held to hear arguments on the

issues raised by the parties in their respective filings. Following the hearing, the trial

court found that the purported will executed on June 8, 2007, was null and void for the

decedent’s lack of comprehension (mental acuity) at that time. This appeal followed.

LAW AND ARGUMENT

On appeal, Ms. Edwards lists three assignments of error:

1. The trial judge erred and committed manifest error in admitting the
testimony, over timely objections, of a psychiatrist as an expert in the
field of “psychological autopsy” even though the doctor had never seen
or examined and ultimately based his opinions on subjective information
from partial medical records, which he admitted were inconsistent.

2. The trial judge committed manifest error in ignoring the testimonies
of five disinterested parties, including, the attorney who drew up the will,
a long time friend who sat with the testator on a daily basis, and three
medical professionals who treated the testator.

3. The trial judge was clearly wrong in concluding that the testimony of
the psychiatrist and the testator’s daughter proved by clear and
convincing evidence that the testator was incapacitated.

“The trial court is accorded vast discretion concerning the admission of

evidence, and its decision will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that

discretion.” McIntosh v. McElveen, 04-1041, pp. 9-10 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/2/05), 893

So.2d 986, 994, writ denied, 05-528 (La. 4/29/05), 901 So.2d 1069; citing Maddox

v. Omni Drilling Corp., 96-1673 (La.App. 3 Cir. 8/6/97), 698 So.2d 1022, writs

denied, 97-2766, 2767 (La. 1/30/98), 709 So.2d 706.

Concerning the admissibility of expert testimony, the Louisiana Supreme Court

has stated:

Admissibility of expert testimony in Louisiana is governed by
La.Code of Evid. art. 702, which provides as follows:

If scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the

2

evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified
as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or
otherwise.

The above article follows Fed. Rule of Evid. 702, according to
Official Comment (b) (1988) to La.Code of Evid. art. 702. A district
court is accorded broad discretion in determining whether expert
testimony should be held admissible and who should or should not be
permitted to testify as an expert. Official Comment (d), citing 3 J.
Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence ¶ 702[02] (1981). See
also Merlin v. Fuselier Const., Inc. 2000-1862, p. 12 (La.App. 5 Cir.
5/30/01), 789 So.2d 710, 718 [“Whether an expert meets the
qualifications of an expert witness and the competency of the expert
witness to testify in specialized areas is within the discretion of the trial
court.”] A district court’s decision to qualify an expert will not be
overturned absent an abuse of discretion. Id.; State v. Castleberry,
1998-1388 (La.4/13/99),758 So.2d 749, 776.

In Daubert, the United States Supreme Court set a new standard
to assist district courts in evaluating the admissibility of expert
testimony. The new standard required the district courts to perform a
“gatekeeping” function to “ensure that any and all scientific testimony or
evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.” 509 U.S. at 589,
113 S.Ct. 2786. See also State v. Chauvin 2002-1188 (La.5/20/03), 846
So.2d 697, 700-01. In Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526
U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999), the United States
Supreme Court held that the analysis established by Daubert is to be
applied to determine the admissibility of all expert testimony, not just
scientific testimony. Merlin, 2000-1862 at p. 12, 789 So.2d at 718. The
Kumho Tire case dealt specifically with the issue of whether Daubert
applies to engineering expert testimony. 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167,
143 L.Ed.2d 238.

Daubert established the following non-exclusive factors to be
considered by district courts to determine the admissibility of expert
testimony:

(1) The “testability” of the scientific theory or technique;

(2) Whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review
and publication;

(3) The known or potential rate of error; and

(4) Whether the methodology is generally accepted in the scientific
community. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-94, 113 S.Ct. 2786. This court in
Foret characterized the Daubert factors as “observations” which provide

3

a “helpful guide for our lower courts in considering this difficult issue.”
628 So.2d at 1123.

Cheairs v. State, Dep’t of Transp. and Dev., 03-680, p. 6-7 (La. 12/3/03), 861 So.2d

536, 540-41.

In her first assignment of error, the appellant argues that the trial judge erred in

admitting the testimony of Dr. James M. Anderson who performed a psychological

autopsy of the decedent by examining his medical records, the wills executed by the

decedent and by the appellant, and the depositions of various parties involved in this

proceeding. Dr. Anderson stated that, for the purpose of determining competency to

execute a will, he concentrates on the date the will was confected, June 8, 2007, and

on the period of time prior to that date—in this case from May 8 to June 4, 2007—

when the decedent was treated in the rehabilitation facility, and the period from the

decedent’s discharge to the date the contested will was confected. He also reviewed

the decedent’s medical records prior to May 8, 2007. He concluded that Mr. Edwards

lacked testamentary capacity on June 8, 2007.

We find this case very similar to the situation in Succession of Pardue, 40,177

(La.App. 2 Cir. 11/8/05), 915 So.2d 415, writ denied, 06-215 (La. 4/28/06), 927 So.2d

284, wherein a universal legatee appealed the trial court’s decision nullifying a 2002

will, finding that Jo Green Pardue, the decedent, lacked testamentary capacity when

she executed that notarial will. Charles Platt, the universal legatee, argued that the

trial court erred in admitting the expert testimony of Dr. Paul Ware who used the

psychological autopsy method to determine the decedent’s competency at the time she

confected the contested will. In finding Dr. Ware’s testimony was properly admitted,

the trial court stated:

4

We note that Dr. Seiden testified that the psychological autopsy
method has been described and validated in a number of peer reviewed
psychiatric journals. The record shows that Dr. Ware . . . reviewed
medical records and witness depositions and statements in reaching [his]
conclusions regarding Pardue’s testamentary capacity. Thus, since the
technique employed by Dr. Ware was substantially the same as the
psychological autopsy method, which is generally accepted in the
psychiatric field, the trial court could reasonably have found that Dr.
Ware’s methodology was sufficiently reliable under the Daubert
standard. Consequently, we cannot say the trial court abused its
discretion in admitting Dr. Ware’s expert testimony. The assignment of
error lacks merit.

Pardue, 915 So.2d at 421.

As the court did in Pardue, we find that the trial court did not err in admitting Dr.

Anderson’s testimony. Thus, the appellant’s first assignment of error is without merit.

In her second assignment of error, the appellant argues that the trial court

“committed manifest error in ignoring the testimonies of five disinterested parties,

including, the attorney who drew up the will, a long time friend who sat with the

testator on a daily basis, and three medical professionals who treated the testator.”

The standard of review applicable to this assignment of error has been firmly

established.

It is well settled that a court of appeal may not set aside a trial
court’s or a jury’s finding of fact in the absence of “manifest error” or
unless it is “clearly wrong,” and where there is conflict in the testimony,
reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact
should not be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court
may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable. The
appellate review of fact is not completed by reading only so much of the
record as will reveal a reasonable factual basis for the finding in the trial
court, but if the trial court or jury findings are reasonable in light of the
record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse even
though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would
have weighed the evidence differently. Where there are two permissible
views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be
manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. In applying the manifestly
erroneous--clearly wrong standard to the findings below, appellate courts
must constantly have in mind that their initial review function is not to
decide factual issues de novo.

5

When findings are based on determinations regarding the
credibility of witnesses, the manifest error--clearly wrong standard
demands great deference to the trier of fact’s findings; for only the
factfinder can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice
that bear so heavily on the listener’s understanding and belief in what is
said. Where documents or objective evidence so contradict the witness's
story, or the story itself is so internally inconsistent or implausible on its
face, that a reasonable fact finder would not credit the witness’s story, the
court of appeal may well find manifest error or clear wrongness even in
a finding purportedly based upon a credibility determination. But where
such factors are not present, and a factfinder’s finding is based on its
decision to credit the testimony of one of two or more witnesses, that
finding can virtually never be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.

Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844-45 (La.1989) (citations and footnote omitted).

The appellant’s second assignment of error relies on “the testimonies of five

disinterested parties.” The first of those parties is David F. Dwight, the

attorney/notary who prepared the contested document. The contested will consists of

one page and is in statutory form and leaves the testator’s “entire estate” to his wife,

the appellant herein. In his deposition, Mr. Dwight stated that the document was

prepared at the instructions of Mrs. Edwards and that he did not receive any

instructions from Mr. Edwards. When asked specifically about the trip to the

Edwards’s house to execute the will, Mr. Dwight stated that he was there about five

to ten minutes, that Mr. Edwards did not verbalize anything, and that he smiled,

nodded and shook his head. As the trial court stated, Mr. Dwight never said he

discussed any options concerning the disposition of property with Mr. Edwards. In

fact the court stated: “I think the reason he didn’t discuss that is because Mr. Edwards

wasn’t in the position to have that conversation.” In fact Mr. Dwight admitted that he

had no conversation with Mr. Edwards.

As to David Loyd, he testified that he did not visit Mr. Edwards from the time

he was hospitalized in March 2007 until sometime after he got home in June. He

6

stated that he did not find out Mr. Edwards was home until he got a phone call from

Martha Simmons, Mr. Edwards’ sister-in-law, informing him that Mr. Edwards was

home; however he could not be sure exactly when she called. Accordingly, Mr.

Loyd’s testimony is of little help in determining Mr. Edwards capacity to donate at the

time the contested will was confected.

Yvonner Ceasar, a certified nurses’ aid, attended Mr. Edwards from June 6,

2007, till he died in January 2008. She stated that the first time she came to the house,

Mr. Edwards was confined to bed and that it wasn’t until he received some physical

therapy that he was able to get out of bed. She admitted that he had trouble

communicating, verbalizing only such things as “yeah,” “uh-huh,” “hmm-mm,” and

“no.” She noted that he could not say “yes.” She also stated that at times he was

incontinent and couldn’t remember his last bowel movement. Once again, this

testimony is of little help in determining if Mr. Edwards had testamentary capacity on

June 8, 2007.

Pamela Buller, Mr. Edwards’ physical therapist, also did not see Mr. Edwards

until after he was discharged to his home. She could not remember the first time she

saw him. She stated that Mr. Edwards could follow her commands during therapy,

that he could not verbalize, but that he appeared to be oriented to time and place. Here

too, her contact with the decedent didn’t begin until after the contested will was

executed, making it of little value.

Finally, Holly Lemoine, R.N., who was Mr. Edwards’ home health nurse

testified that she, too, didn’t start treating Mr. Edwards until after he was discharged

to home. She stated that when she went to the home to complete the paper work to

enroll Mr. Edwards into home health, he could not sign the papers. She remembered

7

that he could not verbalize and that, although he appeared alert, he was not oriented

to the time of day. She stated that between the time he was admitted to home health

to just before his death, his cognitive ability improved. Ms. Lemoine visited two to

three times a week for fifteen to thirty minutes a visit. The most relevant portion of

her testimony was that on her initial assessment of Mr. Edwards on June 5, 2007, she

listed Mr. Edwards as having “impaired decision-making.”

The appellant’s third assignment that “[t]he trial judge was clearly wrong in

concluding that the testimony of the psychiatrist and the testator’s daughter proved by

clear and convincing evidence that the testator was incapacitated,” is clearly mis-

stated. In reaching a decision on the testamentary capacity of the decedent, the trial

court must consider all the evidence and testimony in the record just as we must do in

reviewing the trial court’s judgment.

Our review of the record reveals the following. In 2000, Mr. Edwards suffered

a cerebrovascular accident which resulted in right-sided hemiparesis. Thereafter, in

March 2007, he suffered a subdural hematoma which required evacuation. This

procedure left him with an increased right-sided hemiparesis, post-operative seizures,

and a lower left extremity deep-vein thrombosis (DVT). Mr. Edwards developed

aspirational pneumonia which as successfully treated with antibiotics. In April of

2007, he had a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy to place a feeding tube (a PEG

tube), and approximately two weeks later, an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter was

inserted as a precaution against possible complications from his DVT.

In May 2007, he was transferred to the acute rehabilitation unit at Lake Charles

Memorial Hospital (L.C.M.H.)where he remained until he was discharged to his home

on June 4, 2007, just four days before he allegedly confected the contested will.

8

Accordingly, his condition during his stay at L.C.M.H. is much more relevant to his

testamentary capacity on June 8, 2007, than his condition later in June and through

December 2007. On May 15, 2007, his weekly progress summary from the records

at L.C.M.H. indicate the following (emphasis ours): “All information is given by the

wife. Patient is aphasic and dysarthric and unable to effectively communicate 90% of

the time in therapy. However, patient is following one-step commands approximately

85% of the time.” The May 15, 2007 Transdisciplinary Treatment Plan estimates Mr.

Edwards’s ability to follow one-step commands at 80% and states: “Two-step and

three-step commands were 0%.” Further, the document states: “Reading

comprehension is nonfunctional.” The report of May 22, 2007, remains basically

unchanged, except that Mr. Edwards appears to have increased his compliance to one-

step commands to 90%; barriers to discharge are “dysarthria, expressive/receptive

language deficits, cognition and dysphagia. The last progress report, from May 29,

2007, contains NO assessment of Mr. Edwards’s communication or reading ability or

of his compliance to commands.

Anita Dejean, Mr. Edwards’s daughter, testified that at no time during her

father’s confinement to L.C.M.H. could she have meaningful communication with

him. She visited him three to four times a week during his hospitalization and after

he got home. She stated that her nephew was graduating from high school in

California and that the week before (the week of June 7, 2008) she left for the

graduation, she visited her father every day. Ms. Dejean stated that at no time during

that period could she have meaningful communication with her father. She further

testified that before her father’s illness, she had helped him with his business affairs

and that at no time had he mentioned his intent to make a new will.

9

We have considered the extent of injury to Mr. Edwards’s brain from the

hematoma and from the treatment necessitated thereby; the medical records from

L.C.M.H.; the testimony of Dr. James Anderson, who performed the “psychological

autopsy” and who concluded that Mr. Edwards lacked testamentary capacity on June

8, 2007; and the testimony of Anita Dejean. Based upon the forgoing, we cannot say

that the trial court was clearly wrong in concluding that the mover-in-rule, Anita

Dejean, carried her burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that her

father, Robert Edwards, lacked testamentary capacity to execute a will on June 8,

2007.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Al costs of this appeal are assessed against defendant-in-rule, Mary Audrey Edwards.

AFFIRMED.

10

NUMBER 09-175

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

SUCCESSION OF ROBERT EDWARDS, SR.

PAINTER, J., dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion the June 8, 2007 will of

Robert Edwards, Sr. Was null and void for the decedent’s lack of comprehension

(mental acuity) at the time of its execution. In affirming the trial court’s decision to

find the will invalid, the majority finds no error in the admission of the testimony of

Dr. James M. Anderson. Dr. Anderson performed a psychological autopsy of the

decedent. This “autopsy” consisted of the review of medical records, the wills

executed by the decedent and his widow, and the depositions of several witnesses

including Mary Audrey Edwards, the decedent’s widow, and David Dwight, the

attorney who prepared the will. The majority concludes Dr. Anderson’s testimony

meets the requirements of La.Code of Evid. Art. 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993). Therefore, the majority

finds no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in the admission of Dr. Anderson’s

testimony. I respectfully disagree.

While recognizing that the second circuit, in Succession of Pardue, 40,177, p.

7 (La.App. 2 Cir. 11/8/05), 915 So.2d 415, 421, writ denied, 06-215 (La. 4/28/06),

927 So.2d 284, has found that the psychological autopsy method has been “described

and validated in a number of peer reviewed psychiatric journals,” I do not share the

opinion that Dr. Anderson’s review in this case was sufficient. Dr. Anderson himself

testified that there are no established guidelines for the performance of a

psychological autopsy. Furthermore, Dr. Anderson based his opinions on incomplete

medical records which he admitted were inconsistent and did not speak to Mr.

Edwards’ family or caregivers. Accordingly, I do not agree that Dr. Anderson’s

testimony met the requirements of Daubert. Therefore, I would reverse the trial

court’s ruling and find the will valid.