In Re_ Succession of Louis Edward Lloyd, Sr

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO. 2026 CA 0173 IN RE: SUCCESSION OF LOUIS EDWARD LLOYD, SR. Consolidated With NO. 2026 CA 0174 JESSIE FRANKLIN VERSUS SUCCESSION OF LOUIS EDWARD LLOYD, SR. AND EVELYN LLOYD NOV 0 6 2026 JUDGMENT RENDERED: On Appeal from the 21" Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Tangipahoa State of Louisiana Docket No. 20210030514 c/ w 2023- 0000389 - Division E Honorable Brenda B. Ricks, Judge Presiding Ernest A. Burguieres Counsel for Plaintiffs -Appellees, New Orleans, Louisiana Mark A. Lloyd, Phyllis D. Collier, and Cedric Lloyd, Corey Lloyd, Ratysha Michael Gaffney Bailey and Louis E. Lloyd, Jr. Metairie, Louisiana Jessie Harrison (Lloyd) Franklin Cory B. Blunk Counsel for Defendant -Appellant Amite, Louisiana Evelyn Lloyd BEFORE: WOLFE, STROMBERG, AND BALFOUR, JJ. BALFOUR, J. Appellant, Evelyn Robertson Lloyd (" Evelyn"), the surviving spouse of Louis Edward Lloyd, Sr. (" Decedent"), appeals a partial summary judgment granted in favor of appellees, Mark A. Lloyd, Phyllis D. Collier, Cedric Lloyd, Corey Lloyd, Ratysha Bailey, and Louis E. Lloyd, Jr. ( collectively " Appellees"), that annulled Decedent' s October 20, 2015 testament. For the following reasons, we recall the show cause order issued by this Court, reverse the amended judgment of the trial court, and remand this matter for further proceedings. FACTUAL. AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Decedent died on July 19, 2021, and was survived by Evelyn and his nine children, six of which are Appellees.' On December 1, 2021, Evelyn filed a petition for possession requesting Decedent' s " Last Will and Testament" dated October 20, 2015 (" the Testament") be executed and she be recognized as the sole legatee of Decedent.2 On December 7, 2021, the trial court signed a judgment of possession recognizing Evelyn as the sole legatee of Decedent, as provided in the Testament, and placing her in possession of Decedent' s separate and community property. On October 14, 2022, Appellees filed a " Petition to Annul Probated Testament and Re -Open Succession" in the succession proceedings of Decedent. Appellees alleged the Testament is void because Louis E. Lloyd, Jr., Decedent' s child, is totally disabled and is a forced heir of Decedent' s estate. Appellees further alleged the Testament is void because it was signed in print on the first page and signed in Three children were born of the marriage between Evelyn and Decedent. Appellees are Decedent' s children from another relationship. 2 On November 29, 2021, the trial court signed an " Order for Recordation and Execution of Olographic Testament" ordering the " Last Will and Testament in statutory form of [Decedent], dated July 19, 2021, be recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Tangipahoa, State of Louisiana,, and that it be executed according to law." We note this order appears to contain typographic errors, as the Testament is not an olographic testament and it is not dated July 19, 2021, which is the date Decedent died. However, Appellees do not dispute that the Testament was filed with Evelyn.'s petition for possession and was recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Tangipahoa, State of Louisiana. 2 cursive on the second page„ which suggests an impropriety. Evelyn answered Appellee' s petition, denying the allegations that the Testament is void.' On October 27, 2023, Appellees moved for partial summary judgment to declare Louis E. Lloyd, Jr. to be a forced heir of Decedent' s estate. On July 1, 2024, the trial court granted Appellees' motion for partial summary judgment and declared Louis E. Lloyd, Jr. to be a forced heir of Decedent' s estate. On January 31, 2025, Appellees filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that the Testament is absolutely null because it fails to comply with the form requirements for a notarial testament. Specifically, Appellees asserted the first page of the Testament was not signed by the Decedent because the Decedent' s name was printed, but not signed in cursive, as was done on the second page of the Testament. Appellees also argued the Testament was not executed as an authentic act because it was not signed in the presence of a notary and two witnesses. Appellees also asserted the Testament " is not the testament which was executed before the notary public, Linda E. Hodge." In support of their motion, Appellees attached thereto a certified copy of the succession proceedings, including the Testament filed by Evelyn in support of her petition for possession. Appellees also attached to their motion a copy of the deposition of Linda E. Hodge, the notary public who prepared and notarized the Testament, along with the exhibits attached to Hodge' s deposition.4 3 On June 5, 2023, a separate suit filed in the Twenty -First Judicial District Court captioned Jessie Franklin vs. Succession ofLouis Edward Lloyd, Sr. and Evelyn Lloyd and bearing docket number 2023- 0000389, was consolidated with the Decedent' s underlying succession proceedings. 4 Appellees also attached to their motion a certified copy of the court minutes corresponding to criminal proceedings against Evelyn for felony forgery, which, according to the minutes concluded in 2000 when she pleaded no contest. Evelyn filed a motion to strike, or alternatively, a motion in limine seeking to strike any reference to her conviction for felony forgery as it occurred more than ten years ago. The record does not indicate that the trial court ruled on Evelyn' s motion to strike, or alternatively, motion in limine. The use of a motion to strike alone or incorporated in a memorandum filed in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment is not appropriate. Harry v. ABC Insurance Company, 2025- 0103 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 9/ 24/ 25), 421 So. 3d 1137, 1143. Under La. C. C. P. art, 966( D)( 2), "[ a] ny objection to a document shall be raised in a timely filed opposition or reply memorandum." Pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 966( D)( 2), this 3  On March 3, 2025, Evelyn filed an opposition to Appellees' motion for partial Evelyn pointed out that summary judgment arguing the Testament is valid. Appellees, as plaintiffs in the nullity action, have the burden of proving the invalidity of the Testament. Evelyn argued Appellees had presented no statutory or as jurisprudential support for their position that Decedent' s printed signature, opposed to cursive signature, on the first page of the Testament is a material deviation sufficient to declare the Testament invalid. Evelyn did not attach any documentation in support of her opposition. Appellees filed a reply to Evelyn' s opposition, citing Succession=ofFrabbiele, 2024- 0009 1, ( La. 12/ 13/ 24), 397 So. 3d 391, superseded by statute as stated in Succession of Brocato, 2025- 00367 ( La. 3/ 6/ 26), 429 So. 3d 201, 209 n.4, in support of their position that the Testament is invalid based on Decedent' s printed signature on the first page. A hearing was held on Appellees' motion for partial summary judgment on March 17, 2025. Following argument, the trial court stated it would grant Appellees' motion for partial summary judgment based on "[ t]he signatures in connection with this[.]" On April 3, 2025., the trial court signed a written judgment granting Appellee' s motion for partial summary judgment and declaring the Testament to be invalid and an absolute nullity. On April 17, 2025, Evelyn timely filed a motion for new trial, which was denied by the trial court. Evelyn appealed the April 3, 2025 judgment. After the record was lodged with this Court, a show cause order was issued on July 27, 2026, that noted deficiencies in the decretal language of the April 3, 2025 judgment. In response to the show cause order, Appellees submitted an amended Court " shall consider any documents to which no objection is made" to determine, de novo, if any evidentiary value should be given to the documents. Brown & Boot Industrial Services, LLC" v. Farris, 2023- 0706 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 6/ 27/ 24), 392 So. 3d 424, 434 n. 4, writ denied, 2024- 00954 La. 11/ 14/ 24), 395 So. 3d 1183. Evidence of a felony conviction is not admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction. La. C. E. art. 609( B). Accordingly, we do not consider the court minutes attached to Appellees' motion for partial summary judgment or any reference to Evelyn' s conviction for felony forgery. M judgment to include the proper decretal language with the trial court. On August 12, 2026, the trial court signed the amended judgment and the record was supplemented on appeal with the amended judgment. Accordingly, the rule to show cause order is recalled and the appeal is maintained. DISCUSSION Evelyn raises four assignments of error asserting the trial court erred by granting Appellees' motion for partial summary judgment and declaring the Testament invalid and an absolute nullity. In her first, second, and third assignments of error, Evelyn argues the trial court erred in finding there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding the invalidity of the Testament, particularly considering the repeal of La. C. C. art. 1577 and the 2025 amendments to La. C. C. art. 1576, and therefore, erred in annulling the Testament. In her fourth assignment of error, Evelyn argues the trial court erred by placing the burden of proving the validity of the Testament on her instead of placing the burden on Appellees to show the invalidity of the Testament. Appellees argue the trial court properly granted their motion for partial summary judgment and assert that Evelyn failed to set forth any evidence to prove the validity of the Testaments Appellees argue the Testament " deviated from the norm" because the signature on the first page of the Testament varies from the signature on the second page of the Testament. Appellees also point out that during her deposition, Hodge identified a different testament dated October 20, 2015, that 5 In their brief, Appellees argue Decedent' s succession proceedings have been plagued with fraud. This issue was not raised in Appellees' motion for partial summary judgment and therefore, we do not consider this argument. See La. C. C. P. art. 966( F) (" summary judgment may be rendered or affirmed only as to those issues set forth in the motion under consideration by the court at that time"). 5 was stamped " True Copy" ( the ` True Copy testament" ).6 Appellees further note the first page of the True Copy testament varies from the first page of the Testament. A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used when there is no genuine issue of material fact for all or part of the relief prayed for by a litigant. After an Murphy v. Savannah, 2018- 0991 ( La. 5/ 8/ 19), 282 So. 3d 1034, 1038. opportunity for adequate discovery, a motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents show there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C. C. P. art. 966( A)(3); Campbell v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 2019- 0036 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 1/ 9/ 20), 294 So. 3d 522, 526. The burden of proof on a motion for summary judgment rests with the mover. La. C. C. P. art. 966( D)( 1); Lucas v. Maison insurance Co., 2021- 1401 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 22/ 22), 358 So. 3d 76, 84. Nevertheless, if the mover will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the issue that is before the court on the motion for summary judgment, the mover' s burden on the motion does not require him to negate all essential elements of the adverse party' s claim, action, or defense. Instead, after meeting his initial burden of showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact, the mover may point out to the court that there is an absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party' s claim, action, or defense. Thereafter, summary judgment shall be granted unless the adverse party can produce factual evidence sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact or that the mover is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See La. C. C. P. art. 966( D)( 1); Lucas, 358 So. 3d at 84. In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, appellate courts review evidence de novo under the same criteria that governs the trial court' s 6 The True Copy testament was attached to Hodge' s deposition, which was attached to Appellees' motion for partial summary judgment. 2 determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate. White v. Herbert, 2022- 1333 ( La. App. I Cir. 6/ 2/ 23), 369 So. 3d 898, 902. In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the courts role is not to evaluate the weight of the evidence or to make a credibility determination, but instead to determine whether or not there is a genuine issue of material fact. Lafayette Steel Erector, Inc. v. G. Kendrick LLC, 2022- 0892 ( La. App. I Cir. 8/ 29/ 23), 375 So. 3d 464) 474, writ denied, 2023- 01316 La. 12/ 19/ 23), 375 So. 3d 414. Because it is the applicable substantive law that determines materiality, whether a particular fact in dispute is material can be seen Chapman v. Haynes, only in light of the substantive law applicable to the case. 2022- 0288 ( La. App. I Cir. 9/ 16/ 22), 352 So. 3d 1023, 1027. There are two forms of testaments: olographic and notarial. La. C. C. art. 1574. An olographic testament is one entirely written, dated, and signed in the handwriting ofthe testator. See La. C.C. art. 1575( A). The Testament is not entirely handwritten, and therefore, we consider whether the Testament meets the requirements for a notarial testament. On October 20, 2015, at the time Decedent executed the Testament, La. C. C. art. 1576 provided that a notarial testament was one executed in accordance with the formalities of then -applicable La. C.C. arts. 1577 through 1580- 1. As is relevant to the instant matter, the 2015 version of La. C. C. art. 1577 provided: Louisiana Civil Code article 1577. Requirements of form 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 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 7  other separate page, and in the presence of the testator and each other we have hereunto subscribed our names this day of Effective August 1, 2025, prior to the trial court signing the amended judgment in this matter, the legislature passed 2025 La. Acts No. 30, which revised the form requirements for notarial testaments. Louisiana Civil Code article 1576 now provides: Louisiana Civil Code article 1576. Notarial testament; requirements of form A. The notarial testament shall be prepared in writing, dated, executed before a notary public in the presence of two witnesses, and signed by the testator, each witness, and the notary. If a testator is unable to sign, the testator may affix his mark in place of signing or direct another person to sign on behalf of the testator and in the presence of the testator. B. The signature may appear anywhere in the testament and is sufficient if it identifies the testator and evidences an intent by the testator to adopt the document as the testator' s testament. C. The date may appear anywhere in the testament, may be clarified by extrinsic evidence, and is sufficient if it resolves those controversies for which the date is relevant. The purpose of the 2025 revision was to simplify the execution of notarial wills in Louisiana. See La. C. C. art. 1576, Revision Comments - 2025, comment ( a). Significantly, the revision eliminates the attestation clause as a condition of validity for notarial testaments, eliminates the requirement that the testator sign every page of the testament, and repeals former La. C. C. arts. 1578 and 1579, which provided special procedures for testators who were unable to sign or unable to read. See Revision Comments - 2025, comments ( b), ( g), and ( h). Additionally, the revision expressly avoids the phrase " sign his name," which was used in the former La. C. C. art. 1577 and was interpreted by the Louisiana Supreme Court to exclude signing by See Revision Comments - 2025, comment ( d) ( citing Successions of initialing. Toney, 226 So. 3d 397 ( La. 2017), overruled in part by Succession ofLiner, 320 So. 3d 1133 ( La. 2021) ( on rehearing); Succession ofFrabbiele, 397 So. 3d 391). E-',  Section 4 of Act 30 provides for prospective and retroactive application of its provisions, as follows: The provisions of this Act shall apply both prospectively and retroactively and shall be applied to all claims existing and pending on the effective date of this Act and all claims arising or actions filed on and after the effective date of this Act. The provisions of this Act shall not be applied to revive claims prescribed as of the effective date of this Act or to affect claims adjudicated on the merits by a final and definitive judgment prior to the effective date of this Act. The Louisiana Supreme Court has held the language of Section 4 of Act 30 " clearly and unmistakably evidences the legislature' s intent that Act 30 be applied both Succession of Brocato, 429 So. 3d at 206. retroactively and prospectively." Appellees' nullity claims were pending on the effective date of Act 30 ( August 1, 2025) because a final judgment was not rendered by the trial court until August 12, 2026, when the trial court signed the amended judgment. Therefore, given the legislature' s clear expression of legislative intent regarding the application of Act 30, we find we are required to apply La. C. C. art. 1576, as amended in 2025, to the instant matter. The formalities prescribed for the execution of a testament must be observed or the testament is absolutely null. La. C. C. art. 1573. In general, there is a presumption in favor of the validity of testaments, and proof of the nonobservance of formalities must be exceptionally compelling to rebut the presumption. In re Succession ofHolbrook, 2013- 1181 ( La. 1/ 28/ 14), 144 So. 3d 845, 853. In an action to annul a notarial testament, the plaintiff always has the burden of proving the invalidity of the testament. La. C. C.P. art. 2932( B); In re Succession of Theriot, 2008- 1233 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 23/ 08), 4 So. 3d 878, 882. The Testament is typed, states that it is the " last will and testament" of Decedent and provides that Decedent leaves all his property, whether separate or community, to Evelyn. The first page of the Testament contains the following language and the printed name of Decedent: C  IN WNESS WIIE4 REOF, I have signed this, my last will and testament In the presence of the witnesses wad notary public hereinafter named. LOUIS LLOVD,*' S-VR. Page I of 2 Pages The second page of the Testament provides as follows: The testator has signed this will consisting of 2 pages at the end and on each other separate page, and has declared or signified in our presence that it is his last will and testament, and in the presence 1 of the testator in ea h other we have herewith 2015. subscribed our names on this day of WITNESSES: i— UWNE HODGI, SR LOUIS LLO'YD, SA. IN HODG NO AR PUBLIC NOTARY I.D. #: 067728 Our review of the Testament indicates it was prepared in writing, dated, executed before a notary public in the presence of two witnesses, and signed by the testator, each witness, and the notary. Thus, the Testament appears to comply with the statutory requirements for a notarial testament. See La. C. C. art. 1576. As discussed, Appellees attached a copy of Hodge' s deposition to their motion for partial summary judgment. During her deposition, Hodge identified the Testament and stated that she prepared the document for Evelyn and Decedent. Hodge further testified that Decedent read the Testament and then signed it in front of the witnesses, Marsha Strickland and Hodge' s husband, Eugene Hodge, Sr. Hodge identified the True Copy testament and noted that it was executed the same day as the Testament, but contained typographical errors because the name of one of Decedent' s children was incorrect.' Hodge stated she did not remember why the True Copy testament 7 The True Copy testament states that Decedent has seven children from another relationship, and lists the names " Latasha Lloyd" and " Bailey Lloyd" as two of the seven children. The Testament states that Decedent has six children from another relationship, and lists " Ratasha Bailey 10 was stamped " True Copy" and she believed, but was not sure, that the Testament was executed the same day as the True Copy testament. During her deposition, when asked by counsel for Appellees whether the witnesses remained at Decedent' s house while Hodge went home to fix the typographic errors in the True Copy testament and draft the Testament, Hodge stated, " I' m assuming they did. I really —I can' t — I don' t remember." Notably, the True Copy testament, like the Testament, names Evelyn as the sole legatee of Decedent' s estate. As discussed, the plaintiffs in an action to annul a notarial testament have the burden of proving the invalidity of the testament. See La. C. C. P. art. 2932( B); In re Succession of Theriot, 4 So. 3d at 882. Therefore, Appellees had the burden of proving there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the invalidity of the Testament and they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See La. C. C. P. art. 966( A)(3) and ( D)( 1). Appellees failed to carry their burden. As explained, our de novo review of the Testament indicates that it complies with the statutory requirements for a notarial testament. See La. C. C. art. 1576. Appellees did not present evidence to demonstrate that the Testament fails to substantially comply with the statutory requirements. Specifically, the evidence attached to Appellees' motion for partial summary judgment fails to prove that the Testament was not signed by Decedent, not dated, or that it was not properly executed in the presence of a notary public and two witnesses. The existence of the True Copy testament does not prove that the Testament fails to comply with the statutory requirements for a notarial testament. Accordingly, we -find the trial court erred in granting Appellees' motion for partial summary judgment and annulling the Testament. Williams" as one of his children, but omits the names Latasha. Lloyd and Bailey Lloyd. Additionally, the name of one of Evelyn and Decedent' s children was changed from " Andre Lloyd" in the True Copy testament to " Maurice Andre Lloyd, Sr." in the Testament. 11  CONCLUSION For the above and foregoing reasons, we recall the show cause order issued by this Court on July 27, 2026. We reverse the August 12, 2026 amended judgment granting the motion for partial summary judgment in favor of Mark A. Lloyd, Phyllis D. Collier, Cedric Lloyd, Corey Lloyd, Ratysha Bailey, and Louis E. Lloyd, Jr., and against Evelyn Robertson Lloyd, and annulling the October 20, 2015 testament of Louis Edward Lloyd, Sr. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Mark A. Lloyd, Phyllis D. Collier, Cedric Lloyd, Corey Lloyd, Ratysha Bailey, and Louis E. Lloyd, Jr. SHOW CAUSE ORDER RECALLED; REVERSED; AND REMANDED. 12