Succession of Carol James Aymond, Jr.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 24-335

SUCCESSION OF

CAROL JAMES AYMOND, JR.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF AVOYELLES, NO. 2021-904365-A
HONORABLE KERRY LYNDON SPRUILL, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ELIZABETH A. PICKETT

CHIEF JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Van H. Kyzar, and Candyce G. Perret,
Judges.

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE APPELLATE RECORD GRANTED.

Douglas Lee Bryan
The Bryan Law Firm, LLC
Post Office Box 707
Marksville, La 71351-0707
(318) 240-8282
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Valentina V. Bryan as tutrix of Dalila C. Aymond

William Alan Pesnell
Alan Pesnell Lawyer, LLC
720 Murray Street
Marksville, LA 71301
(318) 707-0979
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Valentina V. Bryan as tutrix of Dalila C. Aymond

Theodore David Vicknair
Vicknair Law Firm
3112 Jackson Street
Alexandria, LA 71301
(318) 588-8568
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Valentina V. Bryan as tutrix of Dalila C. Aymond

Ryan Toups
Chaffe McCall, LLP
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2300
New Orleans, LA 70163
(504) 585-7061
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Chantel G. Aymond

Eric LaFleur
LaFleur & Laborde
612 Andrew Higgins Boulevard, #1001
New Orleans, LA 70130
(504) 946-9181
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Chantel G. Aymond

PICKETT, Judge.

In the instant appeal, Appellee, Chantel Georgette Aymond, Independent

Executrix of Succession of Carol James Aymond, Jr., filed a Motion to Supplement

the Appellate Record. Appellant, Valentina V. Bryan, has opposed the motion. For

the reasons stated herein, we grant the motion to supplement.

Appellant seeks to appeal the Final Judgment of April 23, 2024, which 1)

dismissed her petition to remove Appellee as Independent Executrix of Succession of

Carol James Aymond, Jr., 2) dismissed her demands for termination/reduction of the

usufructuary rights of Appellee in the Succession of Carol James Aymond, Jr., and 3)

denied Appellant’s demands to remove Appellee as trustee of the Dalila Carol

Aymond Trust. After the appeal was lodged in this court, Appellee filed the instant

motion to supplement the record with the deposition transcript of Stephan M. Carty.

In addition to the instant appeal, a related companion appeal was

simultaneously lodged in this court and bears docket number CA 24-334. Appellee

states that in the lower court, the parties agreed to one record of evidence and

testimony for these two cases, including the admission of Mr. Carty’s deposition

testimony taken on December 13, 2023. Appellee also points out that in the judgment

on appeal, the trial court denied Appellant’s objections to the testimony and

qualifications of Mr. Carty as an expert witness, thereby admitting his deposition

testimony into evidence and the record. Although the deposition was included in the

appellate record of the companion case, Appellee notes that it was omitted from the

record in the instant appeal.

Accordingly, Appellee now seeks to supplement the record under La.Code

Civ.P. art. 2132, which provides that “[a] record on appeal which is incorrect or

contains misstatements, irregularities, or informalities, or which omits a material part

of the trial record, may be corrected even after the record is transmitted to the

appellate court, by the parties by stipulation, by the trial court, or by order of the

appellate court.” Appellee also refers to La.Code Civ.P. art. 2128, which states

“[w]hen no designation is made, the record shall be a transcript of all proceedings as

well as all documents filed in the trial court.”

In opposition to the motion, Appellant acknowledges that the trial court denied

her objections to Mr. Carty as a witness and to his exhibits. Appellant asserts,

however, that she opposes the supplementation of the record because the trial court’s

denial of her objections “was an egregious error of law and evidences a complete

misunderstanding of the issues raised” by her. Appellant proceeds to argue the merits

of her objections to Mr. Carty’s deposition testimony and exhibits and states that she

nonetheless reserves her assignment of error on appeal regarding her objections.

Lastly, Appellant concedes that this court may perceive her opposition to this motion

as premature.

In reply to the opposition, Appellee asserts that Appellant’s opposition goes to

the merits of her assignments of error on appeal, including her objection to the

deposition testimony of Mr. Carty, and states no valid reason for denying Appellee’s

motion to supplement the record. Appellee also refers to the trial court’s Written

Reasons for Ruling wherein the trial court stated that it “ordered the taking of [Mr.

Carty’s] deposition” and that “[b]y subsequent agreement of the parties, the deposition

of Mr. Carty was then taken for trial purposes and filed of record reserving all

objections.” The trial court also denied Appellant’s objections, finding that Mr.

Carty’s deposition was relevant and admissible, citing extensively to the deposition in

making its ruling on the merits. Appellee concludes that this is a classic situation

where pursuant to Articles 2128 and 2132, the record herein should be supplemented

with Mr. Carty’s deposition and exhibits which were considered by the trial court in

reaching its ruling that is now before this court in the instant appeal.

We note that Appellant’s opposition to the motion to supplement the record

pertains entirely to the admissibility of Mr. Carty’s deposition testimony and exhibits.

2

Further, the admissibility of Mr. Carty’s deposition is before this court on appeal in

Appellant’s assignment of error number three. As such, we find no merit in

Appellant’s argument that Appellee’s motion to supplement the record should be

denied. Accordingly, considering Articles 2128 and 2132, we grant Appellee’s

motion to supplement the record and order the clerk for the Twelfth Judicial District

Court to supplement the appellate record, in duplicate, with the deposition testimony

of Stephen M. Carty and its accompanying exhibits within fifteen days of this opinion.

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE APPELLATE RECORD GRANTED.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Uniform Rules―Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.3.

3