Succession of Albert Phillips, Sr.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 11-779

SUCCESSION OF

ALBERT PHILLIPS, SR.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF NATCHITOCHES, NO. 14,608
HONORABLE ERIC ROGER HARRINGTON, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

BILLY HOWARD EZELL
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Jimmie C. Peters, and
Billy Howard Ezell, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Charles Wilson Seaman
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 835
Natchitoches, LA 71458-0835
(318) 352-7821
Counsel for Intervenors/Appellants:
Vivian Johnson
Caltren Payton
Sue Nash
William Phillips, Sr.

Jared Dunahoe
Dunahoe Law Firm
P. O. Box 607
Natchitoches, LA 71457
(318) 352-1999
Counsel for Appellee:
Lashonda Phillips
1

Ezell, Judge.

The siblings of Albert Phillips appeal the judgment of the trial court placing

Lashonda Phillips in possession of his estate as sole heir. For the following reasons,

we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In September 1966, Gladys Phillips, at the age of sixteen, married Leroy Brown.

Believing that marriage to be null due to her age at the time of the marriage, Gladys

then married Albert Phillips in 1969, without having divorced Leroy Brown. In

August 1972, Lashonda Phillips was born. Three years later, Gladys finally divorced

Leroy Brown. Albert never divorced Gladys or filed any disavowal action regarding

Lashonda.

In September 2009, Albert passed away. Lashonda opened his succession,

seeking to be recognized as sole heir and to be placed in possession of his estate.

Albert’s siblings (the Intervenors) intervened, alleging Albert died without heirs and

also seeking to be placed in possession of his estate. The trial court dismissed the

intervention and entered a judgment in favor of Lashonda, placing her in possession of

the estate of Albert Phillips. From that decision, the Intervenors appeal.

The Intervenors assert three assignments of error on appeal. They claim that

the trial court erred in finding Albert and Gladys Phillips entered their marriage in

good faith; that the trial court erred in holding that the time to bring a disavowal

action had prescribed; and that the trial court erred in failing to find the Intervenors

had proved Lashonda was not the child of Albert. Because our findings on them are

so intertwined, we will address the first two assignments together.

Louisiana Civil Code Article 94 states that “[a] marriage is absolutely null

when contracted without a marriage ceremony, by procuration, or in violation of an

impediment. A judicial declaration of nullity is not required, but an action to

recognize the nullity may be brought by any interested person.” Because an existing

2

marriage is an impediment to a subsequent marriage, Gladys and Albert Phillips’

marriage was absolutely null. La.Civ.Code art. 88. However, La.Civ.Code art. 96

goes on to state, in pertinent part:

An absolutely null marriage nevertheless produces civil effects in
favor of a party who contracted it in good faith for as long as that party
remains in good faith.

When the cause of the nullity is one party’s prior undissolved
marriage, the civil effects continue in favor of the other party, regardless
of whether the latter remains in good faith, until the marriage is
pronounced null or the latter party contracts a valid marriage.

A marriage contracted by a party in good faith produces civil
effects in favor of a child of the parties.

As noted in Alfonso v. Alfonso, 99-261, p. 5 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/27/99), 739 So.2d 946,

948-49 (citations omitted):

“Good faith” is defined as an honest and reasonable belief that the
marriage was valid and that no legal impediment to it existed. “Good
faith” consists of being ignorant of the cause which prevents the
formation of the marriage, or being ignorant of the defects in the
celebration which caused the nullity. The question of whether a party is
in good faith is subjective, and depends on all the circumstances present
in a given case. Although the good faith analysis test incorporates the
objective elements of reasonableness, the inquiry is essentially a
subjective one.

The determination of whether good faith is present is a factual
question and the finding of the trial judge is entitled to great weight on
appeal. That factual determination will not be overturned unless it is
shown to be clearly wrong. Any doubt as to the existence of good faith is
to be resolved in favor of a finding of good faith.

Additionally, “[t]he husband of the mother is presumed to be the father of a

child born during the marriage or within three hundred days from the date of the

termination of the marriage.” La.Civ.Code art. 185. “The action for disavowal of

paternity is subject to a liberative prescription of one year. This prescription

commences to run from the day the husband learns or should have learned of the birth

of the child.” La.Civ.Code art. 189.

The trial court found that Gladys and Albert Phillips were in good faith when

they entered into their marriage because Gladys believed her prior marriage to Leroy
2

Brown to have been null due to her young age. There was no evidence in the record

to counter that finding. Further, even if the court disbelieved Gladys, there is no

evidence at all that Albert was not in good faith at the time he married her. Because

the marriage was contracted in good faith, civil effects of the marriage were produced

in favor of Lashonda under La.Civ.Code art. 96, regardless of the actual nullity.

Moreover, because Albert did not file any disavowal of paternity within one year of

her birth, he could no longer seek to disavow Lashonda, even if subsequent questions

surrounding her paternity arose. Lashonda Phillips is entitled to be deemed the sole

heir of Albert Phillips. There is no error evident in the trial court’s findings.

Finally, the Intervenors assert that they proved by a preponderance of the

evidence that Lashonda was the child of Matthew Braxton. We agree with the trial

court that the simple listing of Lashonda as his child in Mr. Braxton’s funeral program

in no way established any paternity, nor does a letter published in the paper. Again,

there is no error in the rulings of the trial court.

For the above reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this

appeal are assessed against the Intervenors.

AFFIRMED.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform Rules-

Courts of Appeal. Rule 2-16.3.

3