In the Matter of the Succession of John Robert Biscamp

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

16-673

IN THE MATTER OF THE SUCCESSION OF JOHN ROBERT BISCAMP

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 42,343
HONORABLE THOMAS M. YEAGER, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

DAVID E. CHATELAIN*
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, John D. Saunders, and
David E. Chatelain, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

_________________________________

*Honorable David E. Chatelain participated in this decision by appointment of the
Louisiana Supreme Court as Judge Pro Tempore.

E. Grey Burnes Talley
Burnes , Burnes & Talley
P. O. Box 650
Alexandria, LA 71309-0650
(318) 442-5231
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS:
Collis Wayne Lott
Winnie Fuller
Betty Biscamp
Robert Biscamp

James G. Theus
Theus Law Offices
P. O. Box 8432
Alexandria, LA 71301
(318) 769-9395
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES:
Tiffani Williams
Aleesha Kuhn

Carmen T. Hebert
Carleton, Loraso & Hebert, LLC
445 N. Blvd., Ste. 625
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
(225) 282-0602
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES:
Tiffani Williams
Aleesha Kuhn

CHATELAIN, Judge.

In this succession case, the proponents of a notarial testament challenge the

trial court’s ruling declaring the testament an absolute nullity. Because we find the

purported testament fails to contain the requisite attestation clause signed by the

notary as mandated under La.Civ.Code art. 1577, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

John Robert Biscamp (Biscamp) died on April 6, 2015, survived by two

daughters—Alessha Biscamp Kuhn and Tiffiani Biscamp Williams (plaintiffs).

On May 28, 2015, plaintiffs filed their “Petition and Order to Be Appointed

Independent Administrator,” alleging their father died intestate and requesting the

appointment of Alessha Kuhn as independent administrator. Letters of Independent

Administration were then issued to Aleesha Kuhn.

Not long thereafter, on June 8, 2015, Collis Wayne Lott (Lott) filed his

“Reconventional Demand for Filing, Execution of Will, and for Possession,”

attaching thereto a document entitled “Last Will and Testament of John Robert

Biscamp” (testament) executed in notarial form on December 22, 2010. Therein,

Biscamp left equal and undivided interests in his residuary estate to his siblings,

Lott, Winnie Lee Fuller, Verna Inez Barnett, Robert Lee Biscamp, and Betty Ann

Biscamp (legatees). Though acknowledging his two daughters, the provisions of

the testament noted Biscamp’s failure to provide for any distribution to them was

“intentional.” Biscamp also nominated Lott as executor. On June 18, 2015,

Letters of Independent Administration were issued to Lott, confirming his

independent executorship.

On February 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed their “Petition to Annul Testament,”

alleging the testament was absolutely null because it did not conform with the

formal requirements of La.Civ.Code art. 1577:

The alleged testament is absolutely null because it does not
conform with the requirements of form prescribed under the Louisiana
Civil Code article 1577. The attestation clause for the notary and two
witnesses is not found in the Last Will and Testament, comprised of
numbered pages 1-4, but in a separate document titled “Affidavit”
comprised of numbered pages 1-2.

….

Further, the clauses in the “Affidavit” do not state that the
testator signed in the presence of the witnesses and notary or that the
witnesses signed in the presence of the notary.

Plaintiffs also noted the clause signed by the notary did not state that Biscamp

declared the testament to be his testament to the notary in the presence of the

witnesses.

In opposition, the legatees contended the nonconsecutive pagination did not

give rise to an inference of two separate documents as a simple review of the

margins, size, type, font, and other formatting was indicative of a single document

with separate headings. Moreover, the legatees noted all the pages were executed

by the signatories on the same date, December 22, 2010. The legatees further

argued the affidavit was in fact an attestation, which provided that Biscamp signed

in the presence of the witnesses and the notary and that the witnesses signed in the

presence of the notary. To find otherwise, they cautioned, would place form over

substance when it is more important that the required acts be done than that they be

recited.

Trial was held on May 10, 2016. The only evidence admitted was a copy of

the testament, which consists of a six-page document initialed “JRB” at the bottom

of each page.1 The first four pages set forth the dispositive portion, whereas the

1
Although not an issue in this case, for completeness we note that the jurisprudence has
held that although the testator only placed his initials on the bottom of each page, as opposed to a
more formal signature, the testator’s initials suffice for his signature. Succession of Squires, 93-
1589 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/94), 640 So.2d 813, writ denied, 94-1660 (La. 9/16/94), 642 So.2d 199;
Succession of Armstrong, 93-2385 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/28/94), 636 So.2d 1109, writ denied, 94-
1370 (La. 9/16/94), 642 So.2d 196.
2

last two pages contain an “Affidavit” signed by Biscamp, two witnesses, and a

notary. Notably, the pages of the testament are not numbered sequentially 1-6.

Rather the second, third, and fourth pages are paginated “2, 3, and 4,” respectively,

with the sixth page numbered “2.” Both the first page and fifth page lack

pagination, and the certification of the witnesses on page 3 states the testament

“consists of ______ pages[.]”

After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court rendered judgment

declaring the testament “an absolute nullity for materially deviating from the form

requirements of Louisiana Civil Code article 1577.” In its written reasons, the trial

court found:

In comparing the will with the provisions of La. C.C. art. 1577,
the purported attestation clause by the notary fails to state that the
testator (1) declared the will to be his Last Will and Testament to the
notary, (2) in the presence of the witnesses.

Moreover, with respect to the statements by the witnesses set
forth in the paragraph preceding the notary’s statement, while this
paragraph indicates that the witnesses were “sworn,” that the “the
Testator signs it willingly in our presence,” and that the witnesses sign
“in the presence and hearing of the Testator … and in the presence of
each other, … as witness to the Testator’s signing,” this clause
likewise does not clearly state that the will and necessary signatures
were signed in the presence of all persons, including the notary. Thus,
this paragraph likewise is defective.

Therefore, the will in question does not contain the required
attestation clause which creates the issue: is the defective attestation
clause in the Last Will and Testament a material deviation from the
manner of execution prescribed by La. C.C. art. 1577 and therefore
fatal to the validity of the will?

….

The jurisprudence has consistently held that where a will is
merely notarized, but there is no declaration signed by the notary,
such a clause is not in compliance with LSA-C.C. art. 1577. Further,
such defects constitute a substantive defect fatal to the validity of the
will and cannot be cured through the subsequent testimony of the
witnesses and the notary….

3

Mr. Biscamp’s will appears to be computer generated and
prepared by a lay person. Regardless, the requisites of law still apply.
Even though the result will be harsh, the Court is bound to follow the
law applicable to and governing such instruments. The Court is a
court of law and not of equity.

Accordingly, the trial court “regrettably” declared the testament an absolute

nullity; recalled and set aside the order appointing Lott independent executor;

recalled the letters of independent administration issued to Lott; recognized

Aleesha Kuhn as the independent administrator of the succession; and declared the

succession intestate. The legatees timely appealed the trial court’s judgment.2

DISCUSSION

The legatees assign two errors to the trial court’s judgment. First, they

contend the trial court erred in finding the “attestation clause by the notary fails to

state that the testator (1) declared the will to be his Last Will and Testament to the

notary, (2) in the presence of the witnesses.” Second, they assert the trial court

erred in finding the testament contains a material deviation from the manner of

execution prescribed by La.Civ.Code art. 1577.

An appellate court must accord the factual findings of a trial court great

weight in a will contest and cannot disturb such findings in the absence of manifest

error. In re Succession of Hebert, 12-281 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/3/12), 101 So.3d 131.

However, the trial court’s interpretation and application of legal principles and

statutory provisions are legal findings subject to de novo review, “‘without the

great deference . . . we attach to credibility determinations.’” Kevin Assocs., L.L.C.

v. Crawford, 03-211, p. 15 (La. 1/30/04), 865 So.2d 34, 43 (quoting State v. Payne,

01-3196, p. 6 (La. 12/4/02), 883 So.2d 927, 933). As evident in its reasoning and

the trial transcript, the trial court’s judgment herein rests upon its interpretation and

2
The legatees filed their motion for appeal in this court on July 18, 2016. Although their
brief was due on September 12, 2016, we granted their request of an extension until September
22, 2016, which they timely met.
4

application of the form requirements set forth in La.Civ.Code art. 1577 to the four

corners of the testament. Moreover, given that the facts are not in dispute, the

issues presented for our review are clearly legal ones. Accordingly, our review

begins with the law itself—our Civil Code articles governing the testamentary

formalities for donations mortis causa.

Our Civil Code defines such a donation as “an act to take effect at the death

of the donor by which he disposes of the whole or a part of his property.”

La.Civ.Code art. 1469. Prescribed therein, a person may only dispose of his

property in this manner upon the proper execution of a last will or testament in a

form “authorized by law”: “A disposition mortis causa may be made only in the

form of a testament authorized by law.” La.Civ.Code art. 1570. The

“[t]estamentary formalities serve as evidence of the requisite intent necessary to

confect” a proper donation mortis causa. Kathryn Venturatos Lorio, 10 La.Civ.Law

Treatise, Successions and Donations, § 12.1 (2d ed. 2016). These formal

requirements were “designed to provide a simplified means for a testator to express

his testamentary intent and to assure . . . that the instrument was intended to be his

last will.” Succession of Porche, 288 So.2d 27, 30 (La.1973).

“The purpose of prescribing formalities for the execution of wills is to guard

against mistake, imposition, undue influence, fraud or deception, to afford a means

of determining the will’s authenticity, and to prevent substitution of some other

writing in its place.” Succession of Hebert, 101 So.3d at 135. Nevertheless, the

“formalities prescribed for the execution of a testament must be observed or the

testament is absolutely null[.]” La.Civ.Code art. 1573. This is true even when

testamentary intent is clearly apparent and there are no allegations of fraud. See

Succession of Roussel, 373 So.2d 155 (La.1979). As the Louisiana Supreme Court

explains, courts in interpreting testaments
5

recognize the cardinal rule of construction and interpretation of wills,
long applied in this State and generally in other jurisdictions, that the
intention of the testator as expressed in the will must govern. But we
are equally cognizant of the proposition that the intention to make a
will, although clearly stated or proved, will be ineffectual unless the
execution thereof complies with the statutory requirement.

A material deviation from the manner of execution prescribed
by statute will be fatal to the validity of the will. The fact that there is
no fraud, or even suggestion or intimation of it, will not justify the
courts in departing from the statutory requirements, even to bring
about justice in the particular instance, since any material relaxation
of the statutory or codal rule will open up a fruitful field for fraud,
substitution, and imposition.

Succession of Roussel, 373 So.2d at 157.

Presently, our Civil Code prescribes two testamentary forms: “olographic

and notarial.” La.Civ.Code art. 1574. An olographic testament is one “entirely

written, dated, and signed in the handwriting of the testator.” La.Civ.Code art.

1575. Relevant herein, pursuant to La.Civ.Code art. 1576, a notarial testament is

“one that is executed in accordance with the formalities of Article[] 1577[,]” 3

which require that the testament be written and dated as well as executed in the

presence of a notary and two competent witnesses:

The notarial testament shall be prepared in writing and dated
and shall be executed in the following manner. If the testator knows
how to sign his name and to read and is physically able to do both,
then:

(1) In the presence of a notary and two competent
witnesses, the testator shall declare or signify to them

3
The Revision Comments explain:

A notarial testament may be made in one of four ways. The notarial testament
described in Article 1577 may be made only by a person who knows how to sign
his name and how to read the testament as written, and is physically able to do
both. If the testator lacks the physical ability to sign his name, the testament must
be made in the manner described in Article 1578. If the testator's sight is impaired
to the extent that he cannot read or if he is a person who does not know how to
read, the testament must be made in the manner described in Article 1579. If the
testator knows how to and is physically able to read braille, the testament may be
made in the manner described in Article 1580. It is envisioned that most testators
will use the basic notarial testament described in Article 1577.

La.Civ.Code art. 1574, Revision Comments—1997, comment (f).
6

that the instrument is his testament and shall sign his
name at the end of the testament and on each other
separate page.

(2) In the presence of the testator and each other,
the notary and the witnesses shall sign the following
declaration, or one substantially similar: “In our presence
the testator has declared or signified that this instrument
is his testament and has signed it at the end and on each
other separate page, and in the presence of the testator
and each other we have hereunto subscribed our names
this ____ day of _________, ____.”

La.Civ.Code art. 1577.

Therefore, to properly confect a notarial testament, a testator “shall,”4 “in the

presence of a notary and two competent witnesses,” (1) “declare or signify” that

the written and dated “instrument is his testament,” and (2) “sign his name at the

end of the testament and on each other separate page.” La.Civ.Code art. 1577(1).

The notary and witnesses “shall” likewise, “in the presence of the testator and each

other,” sign a declaration in the exact words provided in the code or ones

“substantially similar” thereto, attesting that (1) in their presence the testator had

“declared or signified” that the instrument was his testament and had “signed it at

the end and on each other separate page,” and (2) they “subscribed” their names

“in the presence of the testator and each other.” La.Civ.Code art. 1577(2). These

declarations are known as an attestation clause because in them the notary and the

witnesses “are attesting to the observance of the formalities,” i.e., to the testator’s

declaration and his signature made and executed in the presence of all signing

parties. See La.Civ.Code art. 1577, Revision Comments—1997, comment (b).5 As

4
As provided in La.R.S. 1:3, “The word ‘shall’ is mandatory and the word ‘may’ is
permissive.”
5
The following is a sample form for a notarial testament:

STATE OF LOUISIANA
PARISH OF ORLEANS

7

such, the attestation clause has acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the

law, and it is construed and understood according to such peculiar and appropriate

meaning.

Recently, in interpreting an attestation clause, the Louisiana Supreme Court

explained:

All of the formal requisites for the composition of
our statutory will must be observed; otherwise the
instrument is null and void. There must be an attestation
clause, or clause of declaration. However, its form is not
sacrosanct: It may follow the form suggested in the
statute or use a form substantially similar thereto. The
attestation clause is designed to evince that the facts and
circumstances of the confection and execution of the

BE IT KNOWN that I, , Notary Public duly commissioned and qualified in and
for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, have prepared the following
testament of (TESTATOR) by his direction, he wishing to take advantage of the
provisions of La. Civ. Code art. 1577:

I, (TESTATOR), do make this my last will and testament, revoking all previous
wills and codicils.

[dispositive provisions]

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the said (TESTATOR) signs his name hereto and
on each page hereof in the presence of the undersigned notary public and the
undersigned witnesses on this ____ day of ____ , Two-thousand .

_________________
signed (TESTATOR)
WITNESSES:

In our presence, the testator has declared or signified that this instrument is his
testament and has signed it at the end and on each other separate page, and in the
presence of the testator and each other we have hereunto subscribed our names
this ____ day of ____, _______.
_____________
signed (WITNESS ONE)
______________
signed (WITNESS TWO)
______________
signed(NOTARY PUBLIC)

Lorio, Id. at § 12.4. Given the reliance on what the trial court described as computer-generated
testaments, we strongly feel the public would benefit from the form provided by the treatise
author, a noted member of the Louisiana State Law Institute Successions and Donations
Committee upon whose recommendation La.Civ.Code art. 1577 was enacted in our Civil Code
Revision of 1997, see 1997 La. Acts No. 1421, § 1 (enacted “On Recommendation of the
Louisiana State Law Institute”). See e.g., Succession of Toney, 15-1928 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/3/16),
195 So.3d 672, and In re Succession of Seal, 10-351 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/10/10), 2010 WL 3527597,
writ denied, 10-2294 (La. 1/28/11), 56 So.3d 964 (unpublished opinion).
8

instrument conform to the statutory requirements. In
construing the attestation clause of this type of will, this
court has been most liberal in its determination of
whether the clause complies in form and whether it
evidences the requisites to supply validity to the
instrument. See Succession of Eck, 233 La. 764, 98 So.2d
181 [ (1957) ]; Succession of Nourse, 234 La. 691, 101
So.2d 204 [(1958)]. In Succession of Thibodeaux, 238 La.
791, 116 So.2d 525 [ (1959) ], we reiterated a basic
principle of construction of wills, that the validity of a
will is to be maintained if possible. In construing an
attestation clause we will not require strict, technical, and
pedantic compliance in form or in language. Rather, we
will examine the clause to see whether there is substantial
adherence to form and whether it shows facts and
circumstances which evidence compliance with the
formal requirements for testamentary validity.

Succession of Morgan, 257 La. 380, 386, 242 So.2d 551, 552–53
(1970). See also Kathryn Venturatos Lorio, [10] La. Civ. L. Treatise,
Successions and Donations § 12:2 (2nd ed.) (“The statutes [former
La.Rev.Stat. 9:2442] provided a sample attestation clause, but the
form was not ‘sacrosanct.’ ”).

Louisiana courts have held that the complete absence of an
attestation clause will be fatal to the validity of a notarial will. See In
re Succession of Richardson, 05–0552 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/24/06), 934
So.2d 749, writ denied, 06–0896 (La.6/2/06), 929 So.2d 1265;
Succession of English, 508 So.2d 631, 633 (La.App. 2 Cir.1987).
However, courts have also held the attestation clause itself must only
be “substantially similar” to the attestation clause in Art. 1577, such
that minor deviations in form with regard to the date in the attestation
clause do not render the testament invalid in the absence of any
indication of fraud. See In re Succession of Hebert, 12–281 (La.App.
3 Cir. 10/3/12), 101 So.3d 131; Succession of Armstrong, 93–2385
(La.App. 4 Cir. 4/28/94), 636 So.2d 1109, writ denied, 94–1370
(La.9/16/94), 642 So.2d 196; cf. Succession of Bel, 377 So.2d 1380
(La.App. 4th Cir.1979)(statutory will that contained a date in the
attestation clause but not in the will itself was nevertheless valid).

In re Succession of Holbrook, 13-1181, pp. 9-10 (La. 1/28/14), 144 So.3d 845,

851-52.

Though clearly the wording of the codal attestation clause is not sacrosanct,

the provisions of La.Civ.Code art. 1577, along with the jurisprudence interpreting

those provisions, still require substantial similarity between the form employed by

the notary and witnesses in their attestations and the form prescribed in the article.
9

La.Civ.Code art. 1577; Succession of Holbrook, 144 So.3d 845. Therefore, when

an attestation clause is challenged, a court must first examine its form to determine

whether it is the same or “substantially similar” to that contained in La.Civ.Code

art. 1577. Lack of substantial similarity to the codal form constitutes a substantive

defect or material deviation fatal to the testament’s validity. See Succession of

Toney, 195 So.3d 672.6

After examining the notary’s attestation clause herein, the trial court found it

lacked the substantial similarity required. Our study of the language employed by

the notary likewise reveals a dissimilarity fatal to the overall validity of the

testament.

The clause at issue appears as follows:

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COUNTY OF RAPIDES

Subscribed, sworn to and acknowledged before me by John Robert
Biscamp, the Testator; and subscribed and sworn to before me by
Lynette Poag [handwritten] and Arlis W. Poag [handwritten]
witnesses, this 22nd [handwritten] day of December , 2010
[handwritten].

Nita F. James #18281 [handwritten]
Notary public, or other officer
authorized to take and certify
acknowledgements and administer oaths

Comparing the above language with that prescribed in La.Civ.Code art. 1577,

the trial court found error in the failure of the attestation clause to expressly state

that Biscamp declared the testament to be his Last Will and Testament to the

notary in the presence of the witnesses. We agree as this purported attestation

clause, apart from acknowledging the testator and witnesses by name, makes no

mention of the testament and, most importantly, contains no statement attesting to

6
By order dated December 16, 2016, the Louisiana Supreme Court has granted writ in
this matter for summary disposition. See Succession of Toney, 16-1534 (La. 12/16/16), 2016 WL
7638405.
10

Biscamp’s declaration or signification, made in the presence of both the notary and

the witnesses, that the instrument was his testament.

Rather than an attestation, the clause containing the standard legalese—

“subscribed, sworn to and acknowledged”—is merely a “general notarization of

the will,” nearly identical, with the exception of the names of the testators and

witnesses, to those contained in wills recently nullified by the first circuit in

Succession of Toney, 195 So.3d at 675. As the trial court herein and the first

circuit have noted, “[w]here a will is merely notarized, without a declaration

signed by the notary, the requirements of Article 1577 are not met.” Id. Simply put,

the formal requirements of La.Civ.Code art. 1577 require more than simple

notarization; they require the notary’s express declaration—either verbatim or in

“substantially similar” language to that supplied by the article itself—attesting to

the testator’s declaration and signification of his testament made in the presence of

the notary and two competent witnesses.

While we acknowledge there have been no allegations of fraud and the

testament undeniably does express the intent of the testator, the provisions of

La.Civ.Code art. 1573 nevertheless bind us. It is well documented that Article

1573 has required, since the enactment of its predecessor in 1870, adherence to the

formalities prescribed for the execution of a testament under penalty of

nullification. See La.Civ.Code art. 1595 (1870) (“The formalities, to which

testaments are subject by the provisions of the present section, must be observed;

otherwise the testaments are null and void.”) Moreover, despite the legatees’

assertion that the Louisiana Supreme Court has, as a matter of public policy,

advanced a liberal construction and application of the article so to maintain the

validity of the testament if at all possible, that same court still requires

“‘substantial adherence to form and . . . compliance with the formal requirements
11

for testamentary validity.’” Succession of Holbrook, 144 So.3d at 852 (quoting

Succession of Morgan, 257 La. 380, 386, 242 So.2d 551, 552-53 (1970)). In

accord therewith, our courts have strived to maintain a testament’s validity “as

long as it is in substantial compliance with the statute.” Succession of Guezuraga,

512 So.2d 366, 368 (La.1987).

Further, though the notarial testament form was only added to the Civil Code

in the Revision of 1997 through the enactment of La.Civ.Code art. 1577, see 1997

La. Acts No. 1421, § 1, the comments to the article clearly provide it merely

“reproduces the substance” of former La.R.S. 9:2442, which, in turn, set forth the

form requirements for a statutory testament, i.e., a writing executed in the presence

of a notary and two witnesses. Since its enactment in 1952, La.R.S. 9:2442

required “a declaration” in the “form [provided] or a form substantially similar

thereto” signed by the notary and both witnesses attesting that the testator

“signed … and declared …, in [their] presence [the testament] to be his last will

and testament.”7 Historically, this testamentary form, which originated from the

7
In its entirety, 1952 La. Acts No. 66, § 1 provided:

In addition to the methods provided in the Louisiana Civil Code, a will
shall be valid if in writing (whether typewritten, printed, mimeographed, or
written in any other manner), and signed by the testator in the presence of a notary
public and two witnesses in the following manner:

(1) Testator. In the presence of the notary and both witnesses the testator
shall signify to them that the instrument is his will and shall sign each separate
sheet of the instrument.

(2) Notary public and witnesses. The notary and both witnesses must sign
at the end of the will.

(a) In the presence of the testator, and

(b) In the presence of each other.

(3) The foregoing facts shall be evidenced in writing above the signatures
of the notary public and witnesses and the testator at the end of the will. Such
declaration may be in the following form or a form substantially similar thereto:

(a) Signed (on each page) and declared by testator above
named, in our presence to be his last will and testament, and in the
12

English Statute of Frauds of 1677, was adopted from the common-law states to

purposefully “evade the strict standards of form required of civil law testaments.”

See Succession of Hebert, 101 So.3d at 135. The legislature nonetheless has

consistently maintained the attestation requirement of both the notary and the

witnesses since 1952 and throughout its various amendments to the statutory

requirements.8 Similarly, our courts have long required that an attestation clause,

to survive an attack on form, must contain some type of acknowledgement that the

instrument was executed by the testator in the presence of the notary and witnesses

“after some word or act which impelled their understanding that it was ‘to be’ [his]

testament.” See Succession of Morgan, 242 So.2d at 553. A simple notarization,

without some express acknowledgment of the testator’s declaration to all the

signatories that it was, in fact, his testament, has not, and therefore will not, suffice

as an attestation clause.

Accordingly, it logically follows that the notarial testament herein, with its

generalized notarization clause, fails to contain an attestation by the notary

identical or substantially similar to the codal form in contravention of the mandates

of La.Civ.Code art. 1577. Because the notarial testament at issue herein does not

substantially comply with the formal requirements of La.Civ.Code art. 1577,

namely due to its lack of a statutorily acceptable attestation clause, the testament is,

by operation of La.Civ.Code art. 1573, “absolutely null.”

presence of the testator and each other we have hereunto
subscribed our names on this . . . day of ....... 19...

See Succession of Thibodeaux, 238 La. 791, 793, n.1, 116 So.2d 525, 525, n. 1 (1959).
8
See 1964 La. Acts No. 123, § 1; 1974 La. Acts No. 264, § 1; 1976 La. Acts No. 333, § 1;
1980 La. Acts No. 744, § 1; 1997 La. Acts No. 1421, § 1 (repealed and reproduced in
La.Civ.Code art. 1577).
13

DECREE

For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the trial court’s judgment, which

nullified the notarial testament.

AFFIRMED.

14