Succession of Davisson
2016 La. App. LEXIS 2328, 211 So.3d 597 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A will can be invalidated for undue influence if circumstantial evidence demonstrates that a person in a confidential relationship, such as an attorney, impaired the testator's volition to the point of substituting their own. When such a confidential relationship exists with a non-relative, the challenger's burden of proof is lowered from clear and convincing evidence to a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts:
- Following the death of his mother and caretaker, Benny Davisson, on February 28, 2012, Andrew John Davisson became emotionally distraught and dependent on his mother's attorney, Michael D. Cox.
- Several days prior to March 7, 2012, Andrew asked Michael to draft a will leaving everything to Michael; Michael refused but provided Andrew with a Louisiana Civil Code book.
- On March 7, 2012, while at Michael and Sharon P. Cox's home for dinner, Andrew drafted an olographic will leaving his entire estate to Sharon and disinheriting his only son, Jordan Davisson.
- On May 14, 2012, Sharon became Andrew's power of attorney, subsequently controlling his finances, managing the sale of his house, and writing over $50,000 in checks from his account to herself, Michael, or cash.
- On October 11, 2013, the same day Andrew was transferred to a behavioral health unit for depression and addiction, he purportedly signed deeds selling two houses to Sharon for $100 each.
- A week later, Andrew contacted his son's stepfather, attorney Chris Broussard, stating the Coxes were taking advantage of him, he was scared of them, and he wanted to revoke the will to leave everything to Jordan.
- The Coxes prevented the Broussards from helping Andrew change his will at the hospital and had them placed on a no-visitors list.
- Andrew died on February 16, 2014, after falling into a coma.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Cox probated Andrew Davisson's olographic will in the trial court.
- Lori Broussard, on behalf of her minor son Jordan Davisson, filed a petition in the trial court to annul the will, alleging lack of capacity and undue influence, and to invalidate property transfers.
- Jordan Davisson reached the age of majority and was substituted as the plaintiff.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found the will invalid due to both undue influence and lack of capacity, and it declared the cash sale deeds null and void for improper form.
- Sharon P. Cox, the defendant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second 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 will that disinherits a natural heir and names the testator's attorney's wife as the sole beneficiary constitute the product of undue influence when it was executed shortly after a family tragedy, at the attorney's home, and in a context where the attorney and his wife exerted significant control over the testator's personal and financial life?
Opinions:
Majority - Stone, J.
Yes. The will is the product of undue influence because the evidence shows that the Coxes' influence so impaired Andrew Davisson's volition as to substitute their own. The court first overturned the trial court's finding of lack of capacity, holding that Jordan Davisson failed to prove incapacity by the required 'clear and convincing' evidence standard. However, the court affirmed the invalidation of the will on the grounds of undue influence. Because a confidential attorney-client relationship existed between Michael Cox and Andrew, Jordan's burden of proof was lowered to a 'preponderance of the evidence.' The circumstantial evidence was overwhelming: the will was executed at the Coxes' home just days after Andrew's mother's death and a guilty plea, leaving everything to Sharon, whom Andrew barely knew. Subsequently, the Coxes gained complete financial control, systematically divested Andrew of his assets, and isolated him from those who could help, which collectively proved it was more probable than not that the will did not reflect Andrew's true intent.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the critical role that a 'relationship of confidence' plays in undue influence claims under Louisiana law. The court's decision emphasizes that the existence of an attorney-client relationship significantly lowers the evidentiary burden for a challenger, from 'clear and convincing' to 'preponderance of the evidence.' This precedent strengthens protections for vulnerable individuals who are dependent on fiduciaries and clarifies that influence exerted for the benefit of an attorney's spouse is scrutinized as heavily as if it were for the attorney directly. The ruling serves as a stark warning to professionals in positions of trust against exploiting their clients' vulnerabilities for personal or familial gain.
