Succession of John Albert January, Sr.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

15-67

SUCCESSION OF JOHN ALBERT JANUARY, SR.,
AND LAURA GUILLORY AND JIMMY JANUARY

VERSUS

JOHN ALBERT JANUARY, JR.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTY-EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CAMERON, NO. 300-3662
HONORABLE PENELOPE RICHARD, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

PHYLLIS M. KEATY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and Phyllis M. Keaty,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Jonathan W. Brown
Wilford D. Carter L.L.C.
1025 Mill Street
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70601
(337) 564-6990
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants:
Laura Guillory
Jimmy January
Pamela Sue January
Lynn Donald January

Van C. Seneca
Van C. Seneca L.L.C.
Post Office Drawer 3747
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602
(337) 439-1233
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee:
John Albert January, Jr.

M. Keith Prudhomme
Mudd & Bruchhaus L.L.C.
410 East College Street
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602
(337) 562-2327
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee:
John Albert January, Jr.

KEATY, Judge.

Plaintiffs, Laura Guillory (Laura), Jimmy January (Jimmy), Pamela Sue

January (Pamela), and Lynn Donald January (Lynn), appeal the trial court’s

judgment dismissing their Petition to Annul Judgment in favor of Defendant, John

Albert January, Jr. (January, Jr.), arising out of their deceased’s father’s succession

proceeding.1 For the following reasons, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The issue in this succession proceeding is whether the decedent, John Albert

January, Sr. (January, Sr.), was domiciled in Cameron or Calcasieu Parish,

Louisiana, at the time of his death. When the decedent died testate on

December 26, 2011, he had five children, including: January, Jr., Laura, Jimmy,

Pamela, and Lynn. In his will dated February 25, 2003, the decedent named

January, Jr. as his sole legatee. On February 24, 2012, January, Jr. filed both a

Petition for Probate of Statutory Testament and a Petition for Possession in the

Cameron Parish trial court. On February 27, 2012, a Judgment of Possession in

favor of January, Jr. was signed by the trial court.

On July 17, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Petition to Set Aside Judgment, Nulify

[sic] Will and Recognize New Will, based upon another will allegedly executed by

the decedent on May 18, 2006. Following trial on June 16, 2014, the trial court

dismissed Plaintiffs’ petition, holding that the February 25, 2003 will remained

valid as they failed to meet their burden of proving that it was revoked in favor of

the May 18, 2006 will. The trial court’s oral ruling was memorialized in its

1
Although the preface to the Petition to Annul Judgment states that “Pamala [sic]
January, Laura Guillory, Lynn Donald January and Jimmy January” represent to the trial court,
the prayer to the Petition to Annul Judgment states that only the “petitioners, Laura Guillory and
Jimmy January, pray for judgment . . . declaring the judgments previously entered . . . be null[.]”
For clarity, we will refer to all individuals collectively as “Plaintiffs.”

June 23, 2014 written Judgment wherein Plaintiffs’ petition was dismissed with

prejudice.

On September 4, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Petition to Annul the June 23, 2014

Judgment. They alleged that since the decedent was domiciled in Calcasieu Parish

rather than Cameron Parish at the time of his death, the Judgment was null and

void since it was obtained in an improper venue, i.e., Cameron Parish. Plaintiffs

alleged that venue cannot be waived when opening a succession.

On October 3, 2014, January, Jr.’s counsel, M. Keith Prudhomme, filed an

Amended Petition for Possession “to clarify that the decedent, [January, Sr.,] was

actually domiciled in Cameron Parish at the time of his death.” 2 The amended

petition stated that the original Petition for Possession “inadvertently stated that

[January, Sr.] was domiciled in Lake Charles, Calcasieu Parish.” An Amended

and Restated Affidavit of Death Domicile and Heirship was attached to the

Amended Petition for Possession. Following trial on October 8, 2014, the trial

court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiffs’ Petition to Annul upon its recognition

that the decedent was domiciled in Cameron Parish at the time of his death such

that it was the proper venue for the succession proceeding. Its holding was

memorialized in its written Judgment signed on October 13, 2014, which Plaintiffs

appealed.

On appeal, Plaintiffs assert the following assignments of error:

1. The trial court erred in finding that the petitioners in the
Petition for Nullity had a burden of proving [that] January[,] Sr.[,] was
not domiciled in Cameron Parish.

2
According to the record, M. Keith Prudhomme was January, Jr.’s counsel who
represented him during the filing of the succession pleadings in the Cameron Parish trial court.
Prudhomme filed a Motion to Substitute Counsel on April 2, 2014, substituting Van C. Seneca as
counsel of record. Seneca is also January, Jr.’s appellate counsel in the instant matter.

2

2. The trial court erred in its finding that the original affidavits of
Death and Jurisdiction and Relationship stating that the decedent was
domiciled in Calcasieu Parish was simply a clerical error.

3. The trial court erred in finding that the Amended and Reinstated
Affidavit of Death and Domicile and Heirship was the proper method
of correcting the prior affidavits in order to have the same effective
date.

4. The trial court erred in its finding that the decedent was
domiciled in Cameron Parish at the time of his death.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard of review applicable to the instant matter is as follows:

A court of appeal may not set aside a trial court’s finding of fact
in the absence of “‘manifest error’ or unless it is ‘clearly wrong.’”
Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La.1989). Under the manifest
error-clearly wrong standard, this court employs a two-part test for the
reversal of a factfinder’s determinations. Stobart v. State Through
Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993). First, this court
“must find from the record that a reasonable factual basis does not
exist for the finding of the trial court.” Id. at 882. Second, this court
must “determine that the record establishes that the finding is clearly
wrong (manifestly erroneous).” Id. This test requires this court to
review the record in its entirety to determine manifest error. Id. This
court’s determination is not whether the factfinder was correct, but
whether the factfinder’s conclusion was reasonable. Id.

Lemaire v. Richard, 13-581, p. 8 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/6/13), 125 So.3d 558, 564.

DISCUSSION

I. First Assignment of Error

In their first assignment of error, Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred

in finding that they had the burden of proving, in their Petition for Nullity, that the

decedent was not domiciled in Cameron Parish.

In its oral ruling and written Judgment, the trial court found that the

decedent was domiciled in Cameron Parish at the time of his death and held that

“the petitioners have not met their burden of proof to prove otherwise. So I’m

going to overrule your petition to annul the judgment of possession.” The trial

3

court, therefore, made a factual finding regarding the decedent’s domicile which

can only be reversed if it is clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. In re

Succession of Vickers, 04-887 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/22/04), 891 So.2d 98, writ denied,

05-378 (La. 4/8/05), 899 So.2d 10.

“The domicile of a natural person is the place of his habitual residence.”

La.Civ.Code art. 38. “A natural person may reside in several places but may not

have more than one domicile.” La.Civ.Code art. 39. A change of domicile occurs

when a person “moves his residence to another location with the intent to make

that location his habitual residence.” La.Civ.Code art. 44. “Proof of one’s intent

to establish or change domicile depends on the circumstances. A sworn

declaration of intent recorded in the parishes from which and to which he intends

to move may be considered as evidence of intent.” La.Civ.Code art. 45.

The Louisiana Supreme Court has enunciated the following test in Russell v.

Goldsby, 00-2595, p. 5 (La. 9/22/00), 780 So.2d 1048, 1051, to determine whether

there has been a change in domicile:

Turning to the issue of domicile first, we note it is well settled
that residence and domicile are not synonymous, and a person can
have several residences, but only one domicile. La.Civ.Code art. 38;
Messer [v. London, 438 So.2d 546, 547 (La.1983)]; Autin v.
Terrebonne, 612 So.2d 107 (La.App. 1st Cir.1992). A person’s
domicile is his principal establishment wherein he makes his habitual
residence and essentially consists of two elements, namely residence
and intent to remain. The question of domicile is one of intention as
well as fact, and where it appears domicile has been acquired in
another place, the party seeking to show it has been changed must
overcome the legal presumption that it has not been changed by
positive and satisfactory proof of establishment of a domicile as a
matter of fact with the intention of remaining in the new place and of
abandoning the former domicile. Pattan v. Fields, 95-1936 (La.App.
1st Cir.1995), 669 So.2d 1233. Absent declaration to change domicile,
proof of this intention depends upon circumstances; there is a
presumption against change of domicile. Messer, 438 So.2d at 547;
Herpin v. Boudreaux, 98-306 (La.App. 3d Cir.3/5/98), 709 So.2d 269,
writ denied, 98-0578 (La.3/11/98), 712 So.2d 859.

4

In the instant matter, Laura, the decedent’s daughter, testified at trial that the

decedent lived in Grand Chenier, located in Cameron Parish, from birth until

Hurricane Rita struck the area in 2005. She testified that following Hurricane Rita

which devastated the area, he moved to her house located in Lake Charles,

Calcasieu Parish. He remained living there for approximately two years until he

received a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) trailer which he

placed in her yard. The record also contains a cash sale deed, dated September 16,

2009, wherein the decedent purchased property in Lake Charles. At trial, Laura

testified that the deed contains the decedent’s signature and lists his address as

“P.O. Box 94[,] 2973 Grand Chenier Hwy[.], Grand Chenier, LA, 70643[.]”

The decedent’s intentions regarding purchasing property in Lake Charles is

explained in Frances and Charles Perry’s Amended and Restated Affidavit of

Death Domicile and Heirship, dated October 3, 2014, and filed by January, Jr. In

their amended affidavit, the Perrys attested that in 2009, the decedent purchased a

residential lot in Calcasieu Parish where he placed a mobile home because “he

could not afford to comply with the elevation requirements enacted in Cameron

Parish after Hurricane Rita.” The Perrys also stated that the decedent told them of

his desire to move his mobile home to Grand Chenier since “[h]e did not intend to

establish a permanent residence in Lake Charles.” They referred to their previous

affidavits dated February 23, 2012, wherein they attested that the decedent was

domiciled in Lake Charles when he died. The Perrys testified that when signing

their previous affidavits, they were unaware that “‘domicile’ means residency plus

the intent to make that location his habitual residence.” They swore that pursuant

to their amended affidavit, the decedent was domiciled in Cameron Parish when he

died. In contrast, Laura testified that the decedent never intended to return to

5

Grand Chenier since his family lived in Lake Charles and no one would “live with

him down there by himself.” She testified that he applied for and obtained a

homestead exemption in Calcasieu Parish.

Despite Laura’s foregoing testimony showing his intent to change his

domicile to Lake Charles, the majority of Laura’s testimony supports a finding that

the decedent’s domicile was Cameron Parish. Specifically, when she was asked at

trial whether she knew that the decedent obtained funds from the Road Home

Program to reoccupy the property located in Grand Chenier, she responded, “[y]es,

he was supposed to, but didn’t.”3 She testified that he purchased a camper and

placed it on his Grand Chenier property. According to the Amended and Restated

Affidavit of Death Domicile and Heirship, he stayed in the camper “whenever

possible.” Laura also testified that the decedent was registered to vote in Cameron

Parish and that he voted there after Hurricane Rita. She asserted that he would

receive mail through his post office box located in Grand Chenier and that he

registered his vehicles to his Grand Chenier address. She indicated that the fishing

license he obtained after Hurricane Rita also listed his Grand Chenier address.

Finally, Laura testified that the decedent was never going to permanently live with

her.

Laura’s testimony showing that the decedent did not intend to remain in

Lake Charles is supported by Freddie Adam Theriot’s trial testimony. Theriot

testified that he was a Grand Chenier resident who knew the decedent for

approximately thirty-five years. When asked whether he saw the decedent make

3
The Louisiana Road Home program is a federally-funded program providing money to
Louisiana residents to rebuild or sell houses severely damaged by Hurricane Rita.

6

his residence in Grand Chenier following Hurricane Rita, Theriot responded: “I

saw he had a - - he had a camper - - [.]”

In addition to the above, the record contains seven requests for admission

which were propounded to Plaintiffs, asking them to admit or deny whether the

decedent did any of the following: resided in Calcasieu Parish with the intent to

remain a permanent resident of Calcasieu Parish; never registered to vote in

Calcasieu Parish; received his mail in Grand Chenier; was registered to vote in

Cameron Parish; maintained a dwelling structure and utilities at his Grand Chenier

property; maintained his mailing address as 2973 Grand Chenier Highway, Grand

Chenier, LA 70643; and, used his Grand Chenier address on his vehicle

registrations. At trial, January’s Jr.’s counsel sought to introduce these requests for

admission, stating that they were deemed admitted since Plaintiffs failed to timely

answer or object. La.Code Civ.P. art. 1467. The trial court agreed and allowed the

filing of the requests for admission.

In this matter, the trial court had not only documentary evidence to examine

in reaching its findings on whether there was a change in domicile, it also received

testimony from fact witnesses and had to judge the credibility of those witnesses in

reaching its decision. The trial court’s findings of fact are accorded great

deference, especially when those findings are “based on determinations regarding

the credibility of witnesses[.]” Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La.1989).

The trial court testimony suggests that the decedent maintained a residence in

Cameron Parish until 2005 when Hurricane Rita destroyed it, forcing him to leave.

Although he moved his residence to Lake Charles, the evidence shows that he

intended to return to Grand Chenier. Specifically, the decedent placed a camper on

his Grand Chenier property, was registered to vote in Cameron Parish where he

7

received his mail, registered his vehicles to his Grand Chenier address, and

maintained his Grand Chenier address on his fishing license. The Grand Chenier

property was, therefore, his domicile because no clear evidence was presented

showing that he intended to change his domicile to Lake Charles. Therefore, we

do not find that the trial court committed manifest error or was clearly wrong in

finding that decedent had not changed his domicile from Cameron Parish to

Calcasieu Parish.

Despite the foregoing evidence and testimony, Plaintiffs contend that the

original petition was null on its face since neither it, nor its attached documents,

listed the decedent’s domicile as Cameron Parish, where the succession proceeding

was opened. Plaintiffs allege that those documents show Calcasieu Parish as

decedent’s domicile. As a result, Plaintiffs contend that the Judgment of

Possession signed on February 27, 2012, is an absolute nullity for want of

jurisdiction along with all subsequent orders issued by the Cameron Parish trial

court.

The evidence necessary to establish jurisdiction in a succession proceeding

is discussed in La.Code Civ.P. art. 2821, which provides:

The deceased’s domicile at the time of his death, his ownership
of property in this state, and all other facts necessary to establish the
jurisdiction of the court may be evidenced by affidavits.

The deceased’s death, his marriage, and all other facts
necessary to establish the relationship of his heirs may be evidenced
either by official certificates issued by the proper public officer, or by
affidavits.

In the instant matter, the Petition for Probate of Statutory Testament is silent

as to the decedent’s domicile at the time of his death. Attached to it were two

sworn affidavits signed by the Perrys who both stated that, “[a]t the time of his

8

death he was domiciled in Lake Charles, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana.” The

decedent’s death certificate was also attached and stated that he died in Calcasieu

Parish. Despite the foregoing, January, Jr. filed the pleadings in Cameron Parish,

which is the proper jurisdiction for the reasons discussed above. Additionally, any

confusion caused by the Perrys’ original affidavits is clarified by the Amended and

Restated Affidavit of Death Domicile and Heirship. Accordingly, the trial court

was not manifestly erroneous in this regard.

II. Second and Third Assignments of Error

In their second assignment of error, Plaintiffs contend that the trial court

erred in its finding that the Perrys’ original affidavits stating that the decedent was

domiciled in Calcasieu Parish was simply a clerical error. Plaintiffs allege that this

error was substantive, rather than clerical, such that the date of its correction is not

accorded a retroactive effect to the date it was originally filed as provided in the

statute governing a notarial act of correction, La.R.S. 35:2.1(B). As such,

Plaintiffs contend in their third assignment of error that the trial court erred in

finding that the Perrys’ amended affidavit was the proper method of correcting the

prior affidavits, as the amended affidavit was actually a notarial act of correction

such that it must meet the requirements provided by La.R.S. 35:2.1. Specifically,

Plaintiffs allege that January, Jr.’s attorney notarized a second affidavit without

mentioning the whereabouts or availability of the original notary in violation of

La.R.S. 35:2.1(A)(1)(c).

In support, Plaintiffs cite Vickers v. Vickers, 09-280 (La.App. 3 Cir.

11/18/09), 25 So.3d 210, which discusses a notarial act of correction as defined in

La.R.S. 35:2.1 providing:

9

A. (1) A clerical error in a notarial act affecting movable or
immovable property or any other rights, corporeal or incorporeal, may
be corrected by an act of correction executed by any of the following:

(a) The person who was the notary or one of the notaries before
whom the act was passed.

(b) The notary who actually prepared the act containing the error.

(c) In the event the person defined in Subparagraphs (a) or (b) of
this Paragraph is deceased, incapacitated, or whose whereabouts are
unknown, then by a Louisiana notary who has possession of the
records of that person, which records contain information to support
the correction.

(2) The act of correction shall be executed before two witnesses
and a notary public.

B. The act of correction executed in compliance with this Section
shall be given retroactive effect to the date of recordation of the
original act. However, the act of correction shall not prejudice the
rights acquired by any third person before the act of correction is
recorded where the third person reasonably relied on the original act.
The act of correction shall not alter the true agreement and intent of
the parties.

C. A certified copy of the act of correction executed in compliance
with this Section shall be deemed to be authentic for purposes of
executory process.

D. This Section shall be in addition to other laws governing
executory process.

In Vickers, 25 So.3d 210, the issue was whether an error which occurred by listing

an incorrect owner of immovable property in a recorded collateral mortgage was

substantive or clerical. If it was substantive, the date of the subsequent notarial act

correcting the error would not be given a retroactive effect to the date that the

collateral mortgage was originally recorded. Id. On the other hand, a clerical error

would constitute a retroactive effect to the date of the original filing. Id. The trial

court held that the error was substantive rather than clerical. Id.

10

Based upon our reading of Vickers, 25 So.3d 210, and the statute, January,

Jr.’s attorney was not required to mention the whereabouts or availability of the

original notary since La.R.S. 35:2.1(A)(1)(c) only applies to “[a] clerical error in a

notarial act affecting movable or immovable property[.]” Plaintiffs have not

shown how the Amended and Restated Affidavit of Death Domicile and Heirship

is “a notarial act affecting movable or immovable property” such as a deed or

mortgage affecting immovable property as in Vickers, which would warrant the

application of La.R.S. 35:2.1(A)(1)(c). Thus, Plaintiffs reliance is misplaced.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs assignment of error is without merit.

IV. Fourth Assignment of Error

In their fourth assignment of error, Plaintiffs contend that the trial court

erred in its finding that the decedent was domiciled in Cameron Parish at the time

of his death. We have addressed this issue in connection with our discussion of

Plaintiffs first assignment of error. For the foregoing reasons, the trial court was

not manifestly erroneous.

DECREE

The trial court’s judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’ Petition to Annul Judgment

is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Plaintiffs, Laura Guillory,

Jimmy January, Pamela Sue January, and Lynn Donald January.

AFFIRMED.

11