In Re Succession of Wagner
2008 WL 3245514, 993 So. 2d 709 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The donation of community property by one spouse to a third person without the other spouse's consent is a relative nullity that can be invoked by the non-consenting spouse's succession representative if the spouse took legal action to challenge the donation before death. A donee's claim of ownership through three-year acquisitive prescription will fail if the donee lacks good faith, as evidenced by actively concealing the donation from the non-consenting spouse.
Facts:
- Louis and Leila Wagner were married with two children, Warren and Faye.
- In 1998, Louis and Leila provided their daughter, Faye, with approximately $165,000 to construct a guest house on Faye's property, where they would live.
- On August 27, 1999, Louis Wagner executed an authentic act donating gold coins, valued at approximately $450,000, to his son, Warren.
- The gold coins were purchased during the marriage and were community property.
- Louis Wagner concealed the donation from his wife, Leila, and instructed Warren to do the same, which Warren did.
- Leila Wagner never consented to the donation of the gold coins.
- Louis Wagner died on May 22, 2001, and Leila Wagner died on March 3, 2002.
Procedural Posture:
- After Louis Wagner's death, his son Warren opened his succession and was named executor.
- Leila Wagner filed a petition in Louis's succession to partition and recover community assets.
- After learning of the gold coin donation, Leila filed an amended petition specifically seeking her one-half interest in the coins.
- Following Leila's death, her daughter Faye opened her succession and was appointed executrix.
- The two successions were consolidated in the trial court.
- The trial court issued a judgment declaring the donation of gold coins a nullity, finding they were community property donated without Leila's consent, and rejecting Warren's claim of acquisitive prescription.
- The trial court also denied Faye's claim for reimbursement for certain stock sales and ordered Leila's estate to pay interest to Louis's estate on community funds.
- Warren Wagner, as executor of Louis's estate, and Faye Wagner, as executrix of Leila's estate, both appealed the trial court's final judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a donation of community property by one spouse, made without the other spouse's consent, become null when challenged by the non-consenting spouse's succession representative, despite the donee's claim of ownership through three-year acquisitive prescription?
Opinions:
Majority - Guidry, J.
Yes, the donation is null. A donation of community property by one spouse without the other's consent is a relative nullity. The court held that Leila Wagner had personally challenged the validity of the donation before her death by filing petitions seeking the return of community assets, including the gold coins, after she learned of the transfer. Therefore, her succession representative, Faye, could continue the action to annul the donation. The court also rejected Warren's claim of ownership through three-year acquisitive prescription, finding the trial court was not manifestly erroneous in determining Warren lacked the requisite good faith. Warren's active concealment of the donation from his mother, at his father's request, was inconsistent with good faith possession. The court further found the donation did not qualify for the 'usual or customary gift' exception because its value of $450,000 was far beyond any other gifts the couple had made.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the 'strictly personal' right of a non-consenting spouse to annul a donation of community property is not extinguished by death if the spouse initiated legal proceedings to assert that right during their lifetime. It reinforces the critical importance of good faith for acquisitive prescription, establishing that complicity in concealing a transaction from a rightful owner defeats a claim of good faith. The case also narrowly construes the 'usual or customary gift' exception, ensuring it cannot be used to validate extraordinarily large, unilateral transfers of community property that are inconsistent with the spouses' history of gift-giving.
