SUCCESSION OF ALICE GRADNEY BLAZE v. << (2025)

I respectfully dissent from the opinion affirming the trial court's determination that Alice Gradney Blaze could read and write when she executed the notarial will on August 6, 2021.

Angelina failed to object when the trial court excluded the transcript of Alice's testimony in another proceeding she sought to introduce at trial. The majority determined the trial court did not err in excluding the transcript, and the majority agrees no contemporaneous objection was made. Therefore, that matter is not properly before this court, and I disagree that the merits of this assignment of error should be addressed.

The form requirements for notarial wills are set forth in La.Civ.Code art. 1577. The Revision Comments—1997(e) to La.Civ.Code art. 1577 (emphasis added) states:

The ability of the testator to verify that the contents of the written document express his last wishes for the disposition of his property is the mechanism to assure accuracy. Thus he must have the intellectual ability to read the will in the manner in which it is written, and must have the same ability to show his assent by signing his name.

A notarial will is presumed to be valid, and this presumption can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence.

The evidence is equivocal as to whether Alice attended school through the third grade. The trial court found the testimony of Alice's children equally reasonable and convincing as to her ability or inability to read and write. The trial court based its ultimate determination on the testimony of Alice's nephew who testified Alice “could read some ․ simple words.” He referenced only one book. He further explained she could read “not big works [sic] but little words.” The evidence established Alice had not always been able to read from the book her nephew referenced. Rather, it established Alice liked the book, and she had others read it to her frequently over many years. Later in her life, she read sections to her nephew on occasion. Over time, Alice could have memorized portions of the book as it was repeatedly read to her through the years.

No evidence establishes Alice could write anything other than her name or read anything other than excerpts from one book that had been read aloud to her by others for years. The evidence established Alice could read and understand numbers, and she reviewed church bulletins to see how much money the church collected each week as well as sale papers. One son testified she read the bulletins “to her reading capacity.” None of her children testified she ever read to them. None of them testified they ever saw Alice write a check. One son testified he received a note from her but admitted he did not see her write the note.

“The ‘clear and convincing’ standard requires a party to prove the existence of a contested fact is highly probable, or much more probable than its non-existence.” Talbot v. Talbot, 03–814, pp. 9–10 (La. 12/12/03), 864 So.2d 590, 598. The facts of this case establish by clear and convincing evidence that Alice Blaze could not read and write sufficiently to read and understand the notarial will dated August 6, 2021. Accordingly, I find the trial court erred in holding the August 6, 2021 will to be valid.

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 24-599

SUCCESSION OF ALICE GRADNEY BLAZE

APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 24833 HONORABLE ANTHONY THIBODEAUX, DISTRICT JUDGE

CLAYTON DAVIS JUDGE

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Wilbur L. Stiles, and Clayton Davis, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Pickett, Chief Judge, dissents and assigns written reasons.

Frank Granger A Professional Law Corporation 1135 Lakeshore Drive, 6th Floor Lake Charles, LA 70601 (337) 439-2732 frank@fgrangerlaw.com COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Angelina Blaze

Jonathan L. Woods Daniel J. Finch Charmaine B. Borne Randazzo Giglio Bailey Finch & Woods, LLC 900 E. Saint Mary Blvd, Suite 200 Lafayette, LA 70503 (337) 291-4900 jwoods@rgb-llc.com daniel@rgb-llc.com cborne@rgb-llc.com COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: David L. Blaze Leroy J. Blaze, Jr. Mark Blaze Adam Blaze

DAVIS, Judge.

Alice Gradney Blaze died on March 18, 2023. She had five surviving children: Leroy J. Blaze, Jr.; David L. Blaze; Mark A. Blaze; Adam Blaze; and Angelina Blaze.¹ Alice left a will dated August 6, 2021, executed before her attorney, Edward Landry, who also notarized the will, and two witnesses.

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the ruling of the trial court probating the will as a true and valid testament and recognizing David as the independent executor of Alice's estate.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Angelina filed a Petition for Appointment of Administrator and Rule to Show Cause on April 12, 2023. The petition alleged her mother could not read or write but could only sign her name. Thus, Angelina claimed the will was invalid, and her mother died intestate. She sought to be appointed the administrator of her mother's estate. She attached a copy of Alice's will to the petition.

On May 12, 2023, however, Angelina and her four brothers jointly filed a Petition for Appointment as Independent Administrator alleging Alice died intestate. The trial court granted the petition and appointed attorney Stanford B. Gauthier, II, as the independent administrator of Alice's succession.

Mr. Landry originally represented the brothers. On September 29, 2023, Mr. Landry and the law firm of Randazzo Giglio & Bailey, LLC filed a joint motion to substitute the firm as counsel for the brothers.

On October 9, 2023, the brothers filed a petition offering the August 6, 2021, will for probate seeking to annul the order appointing Mr. Gauthier as Independent Administrator and seeking David's appointment as Independent Executor in accordance with the will. The trial court issued a rule for Angelina and Mr. Gauthier to show cause why the brothers’ petition should not be granted.

Angelina filed a dilatory exception of vagueness or ambiguity, a peremptory exception of no cause of action, and an opposition to her brothers’ petition. She alleged the petition was vague or ambiguous because of the “vice of form and/or substance” used to annul their prior verifications and Mr. Gauthier's appointment. She further alleged the petition stated no cause of action because her brothers knew the August 6, 2021, will was invalid, and had, based on that knowledge, judicially confessed in their joint petition that their mother died intestate. Angelina also filed an opposition to the petition alleging her brothers were estopped from probating her mother's “alleged will” based on the May 8, 2023, verified allegations of their earlier petition stating their mother could neither read nor write. She argued the procedural requirements for a testatrix who cannot read or write were not followed regarding Alice's will.

The trial judge noted the remedy for vagueness or ambiguity in a petition is to allow the proponent to amend his allegations. The judge asked Angelina's counsel if she wanted the brothers to amend their petition or whether she was “ready to take it as is and go forward” with the hearing. Counsel elected to proceed. The judge then denied the exception of vagueness/ambiguity.

The judge also noted that the probate of a will is a cause of action recognized by law. Thus, the brothers’ petition set forth a valid cause of action, and the judge denied Angelina's exception of no cause of action.

The judge then focused on the substance of the case and ordered Alice's will to be filed. He found the brothers met their burden of proving the authenticity of the will and its compliance with the formal requirements of the law. The judge discharged Mr. Gauthier from his duties as Independent Administrator and appointed and confirmed David as Independent Executor of his mother's succession.

Angelina now appeals the judgment and alleges three assignments of error. First, she contends the trial judge erred by excluding Alice's prior testimony in a court proceeding, a will contest in her sister's succession, from evidence on grounds of hearsay. Angelina argues the trial judge's refusal to accept that testimony violated her due process rights.

Next, Angelina alleges the judge erred by pre-judging the issue of Alice's testamentary capacity by finding Alice could read and write prior to testimony about the will and by sustaining an objection of lawyer-client privilege concerning a non-confidential communication. Finally, Angelina contends the judge erred in his conclusion that Alice could read and had testamentary capacity, thus validating the will.

DISCUSSION

The outcome of this case turns on the issue of whether Alice could read at the time she executed the August 6, 2021, will. Angelina contends she met her burden and proved her mother could not.

At the hearing, Angelina argued she and her brothers filed the joint petition because they agreed the will was invalid. Alice had thus died intestate, and her five children were her only heirs. She contended her brothers always had the original will but did not file it until they changed their minds about the invalidity of the will.

Exclusion of prior testimony

Alice testified in a hearing concerning the succession of her sister, Mabel Gradney Abatte, on July 21, 2021. A proffered excerpt from that hearing indicated Kay Clark represented “the plaintiff” in the succession, and Michael Bass represented “the defendant.” The excerpt does not identify the plaintiff or the defendant. Angelina's appellant brief states as fact that Mabel's succession proceeding involved a will contest where, as here, one of Mabel's children alleged Mabel could not read or write, and her will was invalid. The other children alleged she could read and write, and her will was valid.

Angelina's appellant brief fails to identify page numbers from the record to reference those alleged “facts” about that proceeding. The brothers urge this court to disregard Angelina's argument as allowed by Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-12.4(B)(3). It is impossible for Angelina to provide record references for her unsupported statements about Mabel's succession proceeding because they are not in the record. It contains only the proffered transcript excerpt without describing the litigation and the issues or identifying the parties. Accordingly, we do not accept and will not consider any statements about that proceeding that are not in the record. We limit our review to the record on appeal.

The excerpt from the record of that proceeding does show that Alice testified, on direct examination by defense counsel Mr. Bass, that Mabel could in fact read and write. Alice told Mr. Bass how Mabel would write “love letters” to boys for her and then read them back to her. Mabel did not write the letters after Alice got married sixty years prior to her excerpted testimony. Alice spoke of how Mabel, who was seven years older than she, was the only one of ten children who received a formal education at a private school. In contrast, Alice and her siblings went to school “but not that much.” On cross-examination, plaintiff counsel Ms. Clark showed Alice an unidentified, undated document and asked if she had signed it. Alice said she told “them” she could not read or write. A notary public had read the document to her, and she had signed it on some unspecified date.

Angelina attempted to introduce a certified copy of Alice's testimony in that hearing into evidence. Counsel for the brothers objected on grounds of hearsay. Angelina now argues La.Code Evid. art. 804(B)(1) provides an exception to the hearsay rule that allows the excerpt to be admitted. That article explains that “[t]estimony given as a witness” by an unavailable declarant is excepted from the hearsay rule “if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a party with a similar interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.”

Angelina offered Alice's testimony against her brothers even though they were not involved in Mabel's succession proceeding. Nothing in the record suggests the brothers had any interest in it. They had no opportunity to develop or probe Alice's testimony because they were not a part of that litigation. The trial judge correctly noted the record does not reveal “what [Alice's] interest was, whether she was telling the truth or not, whether her interests were aligned with the person she was testifying on behalf of, whether there was bias. [Alice] wasn't subject to cross-examination to test those issues.”

The transcript itself refers to the unidentified, undated document “they” asked Alice to sign at some unknown point. That document is not attached to the transcript or included in this record. This court cannot determine when Alice signed the document she could not read or anything else about it. The proffered transcript fails to qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule under La.Code Evid. art. 804(B)(1). The trial judge correctly sustained the brothers’ objection.

Angelina alternatively contends that La.Code Evid. art. 804(B)(4)(a) and (B)(6) offer exceptions to the hearsay rule that allow the transcript to be admitted. Subparagraph (B)(4)(a) provides in pertinent part that “[a] statement, made before the controversy, concerning the declarant's own birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, filiation, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history” is “not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness[.]”

Angelina contends the trial judge erroneously excluded Alice's testimony from Mabel's succession proceeding because it addressed “personal or family history.” Angelina argues the court in that proceeding accepted Alice's testimony “as evidence of a fact of personal or family history (including [Alice's] inability to read and write) ․” While that court may have used Alice's testimony about whether she and/or Mabel could read and write to establish the fact of Mabel's literacy or illiteracy, Alice's ability or inability to read and write was not an issue for that court to decide. Additionally, that court had the benefit of viewing the notarized, presumably dated document Alice signed that remains an unidentified mystery here.

Further, the transcript was not offered as proof of “family history”; it was offered to establish the fact of Alice's inability to read and write in her own succession proceeding. We cannot accept Alice's purported inability to read and write as fact where, again, the nature of Mabel's succession proceeding was not established, the parties were not identified by name or by position in the litigation (plaintiff or defendant), and the document discussed was not identified. Additionally, the record contains no indication of the outcome of Mabel's succession proceeding to indicate whether the judge accepted that purported “family history” or whether the trial judge found Alice's testimony to be credible.

Louisiana Code of Evidence art. 804(B)(6) is a “catch all” exception that requires the trial court to determine “that considering all pertinent circumstances in the particular case the statement is trustworthy, and the proponent of the evidence has adduced or made a reasonable effort to adduce all other admissible evidence to establish the fact to which the proffered statement relates ․” Again, Angelina has not provided sufficient evidence that proves Alice's prior testimony is trustworthy in this succession.

Although the trial judge originally allowed the transcript into evidence, he changed his mind after the lunch break. The judge did not abuse his discretion regarding this evidentiary matter; he correctly granted the brothers’ objection and denied admission of the transcript into evidence. This assignment of error lacks merit.

Pre-judgment of issue

The trial judge turned to the brothers’ petition to probate Alice's will after he denied Angelina's exceptions. He then heard the testimony of Edward Landry, the attorney who wrote Alice's will.

Mr. Landry originally represented the brothers in this action. He testified he believed Alice could read and write when she executed the will, and the document met the statutory requirements for a last will and testament. However, when Mr. Landry learned of Alice's prior testimony after the onset of this litigation, doubts arose in his mind about the validity of the will and Alice's capacity to make it.

Mr. Landry was the brothers’ only witness before the lunch recess. He testified he relied on Alice to identify her desired particular bequests. He testified if a bequest was in the will, it was there because Alice “specifically would have indicated that” to him. Mr. Landry believed Alice understood what she was leaving to each heir, and he “would have made sure that [the will] was in conjunction with what her wishes were at the time.” He would have “absolutely” done things differently regarding the preparation and signing of the two wills he wrote for Alice if he had ever been told she could not read or write.

Because no one, including Alice, ever told Mr. Landry she could not read, he did not read the will to her word for word before the two witnesses to the testament. Instead, he was sure he had reviewed what was in the will with Alice and “told her everything that was in” it. The bequests in the will were based on information Alice gave him, and he verified that information with her. He believed David and his wife were also in the room when Alice signed the will before him and the two witnesses.

When Mr. Landry learned of Angelina's efforts to have the August 6, 2021, will invalidated, he “called into question the position [Angelina's counsel] was taking because [he] never got that impression, [he] never had any record of that, never thought that, that was the case.” Mr. Landry knew “it could be a problem” if Alice could not read. He testified he never had any indication that Alice could not read and write; if he had, he “would have done it different[ly].” His doubts arose only after Alice's death when Angelina's counsel sent the transcript from Mabel's succession hearing.

Mr. Landry discussed the situation with David. He knew he had not followed Civil Code procedures regarding the signing of the will if Alice in fact could not read or write. Mr. Landry and Angelina's counsel discussed having a third party attorney to act as executor and “get it done” even though “it changes what [Alice] wanted ․” The brothers agreed.

When court resumed after the lunch recess, the trial judge began by stating, “She could read and write. Alice Blaze could read and write. Okay?” Angelina's counsel made no objection or any other comment. The judge immediately went into a discussion of the hearsay exceptions of La.Code Evid. art. 804. The judge then changed his mind and ruled the transcript was inadmissible.

The judge explained he reversed his ruling because the testimony was given at a different proceeding but offered against the brothers, who were not parties with a similar interest as the parties in Mabel's proceeding. The brothers had no “opportunity or similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination[,]” and the transcript was offered against their interests. Angelina's counsel proffered the transcript without any objection to the comment. See La.Code Civ.P. art. 1635.

Angelina now complains of those two sentences the trial judge stated immediately before he began another discussion with counsel about whether the transcript constituted hearsay. After the judge stated his position and announced he would not admit the transcript, Angelina's counsel continued to argue the matter but still failed to object to the initial two-sentence comment. She never mentioned anything related to it for the duration of the hearing.

A party who fails to object to a ruling of the trial court waives her right to complain of that ruling on appeal. If Angelina believed the trial judge's comment indicated he had pre-judged the primary issue of the case, she had to take some action on the record to preserve the issue for review here. Succession of Mouton, 23-254 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/21/24), 380 So.3d 783.

Angelina points to nothing in the testimony of Mr. Landry, the only witness to testify at that point, to support her allegation that the judge decided the ultimate issue based on anything Mr. Landry said. The judge's decision to exclude the transcript from evidence was not based on a factual finding that Alice could read and write.

Had the hearing ended when the judge made that comment, Angelina's argument might have merit. However, the record considered in its entirety defeats her position. Eight more witnesses testified after Mr. Landry. The judge found Angelina and the brothers to be equally “very convincing” witnesses about Alice's ability to read. However, he found the last witness, Alice's nephew, to be even more convincing than the others. That witness had not yet testified when the judge made the comment to which Angelina now objects for the first time. This assignment of error lacks merit.

Attorney-client privilege

Angelina next contends the trial judge erred when he sustained the brothers’ objection regarding attorney-client privilege. When Angelina's counsel asked Mr. Landry why the brothers agreed to file the joint petition, he expressed concern that an attorney-client privilege may exist regarding his prior representation of the brothers. Mr. Landry testified he had discussions with all four of them about agreeing to handle Alice's succession as intestate and appointing a third party administrator. The trial judge told Mr. Landry, “You still have an obligation towards [sic] your clients.” Mr. Landry declined to testify about the substance of their discussions unless his former clients waived their attorney-client privilege. The trial judge sustained the brothers’ objection and accepted Mr. Landry's claim of privilege.

Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 506(C)(2) states no privilege exists concerning communications with a deceased client “relevant to an issue between parties who claim through that client ․” Subparagraph (4)(a) states no privilege exists regarding communication “[w]hich is relevant to an issue of authenticity or capacity concerning a document which the lawyer signed as a witness or notary.” Mr. Landry signed Alice's will as notary. He had no privilege regarding the authenticity or capacity concerning that will, and he never asserted any such privilege. Indeed, he testified at length and answered numerous questions pertaining to the issue of whether Alice could read and write. Counsel for the brothers did not object to those proper questions.

Angelina, however, wants to know what Mr. Landry said to the brothers that persuaded them to agree with her about handling Alice's estate as intestate and appointing an independent administrator. The issue of what Mr. Landry discussed with his former clients is different from the focus of La.Code Evid. art. 506(C). The brothers are outside parties to the attorney-client relationship between Mr. Landry and Alice and to his observations about her pertaining to the signing of the will. The brothers are Mr. Landry's clients in this matter; although it concerns Alice's will, it is separate from the matter in which Mr. Landry represented Alice when he drafted and notarized her will. Discussions between Mr. Landry and the brothers as Mr. Landry's clients are privileged attorney-client communications. While La.Code Evid. art 506(C)(4) could provide an exception to the attorney-client privilege regarding Mr. Landry and Alice, it offers no such exception to the privilege between Mr. Landry and the brothers. Angelina's argument lacks merit.

Alice's testamentary capacity

Angelina says she filed her petition to be appointed administrator of Alice's estate because her brothers “came to the decision that [the will] wasn't valid, that [her] brothers had all agreed to move forward, that they knew [her] mother did not know how to read and write.” Evidence shows that, although they “agreed to move forward,” they never agreed Alice's will was not valid.

Angelina's counsel told the trial judge that the lawyers and the clients involved in this matter believed Alice could not read. Review of the record shows most of the witnesses did not agree with that conclusion. David testified he agreed to appoint Mr. Gauthier as Independent Administrator because Angelina and her counsel “refused [him]. [He] was cornered.” Angelina would not accept David as administrator, and the brothers would not accept her. Mr. Gauthier was their “only out.”

The brothers introduced three of Alice's prior wills into evidence. Mr. Landry's father, Alfred Landry, had prepared a will for Alice dated August 23, 2010, wherein Alice had named her husband as executor, left all her property to him, and made alternative bequests in the event her husband predeceased her. That will named David as the alternate executor. Alice's next will, signed on May 1, 2014, was prepared by another attorney not in Mr. Landry's office. It named Alice's husband as executor and Adam as the alternate.

Mr. Landry prepared a June 3, 2021, will bequeathing specific property and establishing the Alice G. Blaze Testamentary Trust in favor of Nova E. Blaze, Alice's grandson. Mr. Landry also prepared the August 6, 2021, will at issue here. That will changed Alice's bequest to Mark Blaze from her “television set and the TV stand” to “all of [her] tools which includes any tools belonging to [her] deceased husband ․” and changed some of the provisions of the trust. Alice left Angelina her “wooden China cabinet only” in both the June 3, 2021, will and the August 6, 2021, will. Both wills Mr. Landry prepared named David as executor and Adam as the alternate.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure art. 2903 provides the proponent of a will bears the burden of proving its authenticity and validity. A testament is presumed valid unless proven otherwise by clear and convincing evidence. Succession of Boisseau, 33,861 (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/27/00), 768 So.2d 743, writ denied, 00-2993 (La. 12/15/00), 777 So.2d 1233. The same presumption applies to a testator's ability to read. Id.

Angelina bears the burden of proving the invalidity of the will by clear and convincing evidence to defeat this presumption. Succession of Young, 96-1206 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/5/97), 692 So.2d 1149. “Whether a testator can read is a question of fact. Absent manifest error, the trial court's finding will not be overturned on appeal.” Id. at 1151 (citations omitted).

David testified Alice “could read to a certain extent.” She read all her mail, including advertisements and bills. She administered her own medications without assistance throughout her life and “took care of the dosages” until she had a stroke in September 2022. Alice also had a valid driver's license throughout her lifetime and drove alone. She purchased her own car, took out a loan on it, handled her car insurance, and paid bills on her own. As she got older, she would categorize the bills and occasionally just sign her checks when David filled them out for her.

Alice was very aware of the due dates for her bills and was “pretty adamant” about paying them on time. She mostly did her own grocery shopping, but occasionally David did her shopping with a list she prepared. Alice never read aloud to David, and he was not aware of her reading aloud to anyone else. David knew his mother's handwriting and identified notes written by her that were admitted into evidence.

Alice had a third-grade education and worked at nursing homes as a nurses’ aide. She also did private sitting for the elderly. Although Alice helped David's nieces and nephews with their homework, David never saw her read from a textbook or read their homework. She never helped David with his homework. However, David testified elderly neighbors brought Alice the church missalette each week. Alice was always interested in how the church was spending money, and she would read the missalette.

Angelina's counsel questioned David about his testimony in a prior action. Angelina sued him for damages alleging he unplugged her RV camper and damaged her property. Angelina's counsel read testimony from that proceeding at this trial and asked David this question about his trial testimony:

You are indicated by an A, she is indicated by a Q. I'm going to start at line 26. I do not lie. So mama knows how to read and write. No, I never said she did. But you wanted her to sign papers when she didn't even know what she was reading? She was told. By you? No. By who? By the people around her.

Did I just read that correctly?

This narrative is confusing and does not show what statements are attributable to David. It does not show David thought Alice could not read, and the issues in that action had nothing to do with this issue.

David testified Alice gave him her power of attorney in 2010. He took no action as her agent until after Alice's first stroke when she told David to put himself on her account and take care of her bills.

Leroy lived with his mother for five or six years before her death because Alice became “worried about staying by herself at night.” He testified Alice handled all her own affairs until “she had strokes and the cancer.” She handled all her medications on her own. Leroy said, “she never ever let anyone touch her medication, anyone.” She never asked for help with determining dosages.

Leroy, the neighbors, and Alice watched “Wheel of Fortune” on television every day. They tried “to see who could solve the puzzle first.” Leroy worked offshore for many years, and Alice took care of his two children when he was away from home. She was also appointed undertutor for the children in a proceeding that settled a claim for the wrongful death of their mother, Leroy's wife.

Alice signed the children's paperwork for school and took care of their “medicine, doctors, whatever.” Alice read everything that came to her mailbox and prayer cards that she placed on the wall in her room. She also read prayers aloud to Leroy and wrote notes to him. He never saved the notes because he never thought he would need them. Leroy felt Alice could read, not “like you lawyers or anybody, but she could – she could read her own mail.”

Leroy signed the verification appointing Mr. Gauthier because Mr. Landry said that was what they needed to do “to get all this over with, to come to an ending with whatever [Angelina] was trying to do or get ․” He stated, “So I was glad to sign it because this is really sickening to me to keep going through this.” He signed it, but not because Alice could not read.

Adam lived at home with Alice until he was thirty-one years old. He witnessed Alice reading her mail, putting her bills in her chair, and separating her bills from his. She took care of her prescriptions and helped Adam with his schoolwork. Once the principal sent a letter addressed to Adam's father; Alice opened the letter, read it, and explained it to him. Adam recalled “getting fussed for not going to school” because of the letter.

Alice used close captioning on her television for most of Adam's life. She never asked him to read the captions to her. She also read church bulletins each week. Alice did not read aloud to him, but she gave Adam his medications before and after school without using a pill organizer. She told Adam she had written a will that named David as executor. Adam agreed to Mr. Gauthier becoming the Independent Administrator because Angelina did not agree to David being the executor. Mr. Landry did not tell them why Angelina would not agree. He just told the brothers that David could not be appointed, and they would have to choose someone else. Although Adam signed the verification appointing Mr. Gauthier, it was not because his mother could not read.

Mary Blaze, Alice's daughter-in-law, testified Alice never gave her the impression that she could not read. After Alice died, Mary helped locate documents in the house. She found things such as “[c]hurch bulletins, pieces of paper with people's names and phone numbers mostly[,]” along with “lots of medication[.]” Alice's “important papers” were kept “in a little safe that [Alice] gave to David to open.” Alice never asked Mary for assistance in reading those papers or in helping with her medications.

In contrast to the other witnesses, Angelina testified she filed her petition to be appointed administrator of her mother's estate because her “brothers had all agreed to move forward, that they knew [their] mother did not know how to read and write.” Angelina said Alice could only sign her name. Angelina had done all of Alice's paperwork since she was twelve years old. Her mother did not go to school and recognized only numerals. Her father taught Alice how to sign her name. Alice never read to her because she did not know how, and she never helped anyone with their schoolwork. Angelina was “the only one who helped [her] brothers with anything.”

Alice would ask Angelina to open mail and tell her what was in it. Alice learned to identify bills by how they looked, but Angelina had to write all the checks to pay them. She visited her mother every day and helped Alice all through the years, almost every day, even when she lived in other towns. Angelina helped her mother with her prescriptions, which were marked red for those to take in the morning and black for those to take at night. Alice cooked from memory and did not use cookbooks because she could not read.

Angelina addressed Christmas presents for Alice, who would identify Angelina's presents by placing a pink slipper in front of them and Adam's presents by placing a Power Ranger toy in front of them. Alice, according to Angelina, “worked on memory.” Angelina lived at the back of Alice's house, and Alice “basically raised” Angelina's two boys. Alice babysat for Angelina, but she could not help them with homework. Angelina said Adam's wife Channa helped Alice pay bills when she and Adam lived in Alice's house.

Angelina testified Alice never went to any school. Someone had to go to the doctor with Alice to fill out the paperwork. Angelina first testified Alice would give her a list of things she needed from the grocery store. However, when the trial judge asked counsel to clarify a question, Angelina said she wrote the list. Alice looked at the church bulletins only to see how much money the church had collected during the week. Alice asked Angelina to read the church bulletin to her on the first anniversary of the death of Angelina's father to see if his death anniversary was noted.

According to Angelina, she and all her brothers understood and agreed that, after Alice testified in Mabel's succession proceeding, that “the will wasn't valid, and that we would divide everything equally, that it wasn't a valid will.” Angelina understood Mr. Gauthier would liquidate Alice's property, pay her bills, and distribute what remained among the five children. We note that the will left Angelina her “wooden China cabinet only.”

Angelina denied having an estranged relationship with Alice. She admitted Alice had signed a “stay away order” to prohibit Angelina from harassing her but “said she did not even understand what she had signed.” When Angelina saw Alice in the hospital on February 26, 2022, Alice asked where Angelina had been. Angelina had not been able to contact Alice by phone even though the order had allowed “contact or communication.” Angelina testified the written statement on the Petition for Protection for Abuse filed on October 25, 2022, was in David's handwriting. Angelina thought Alice's signature on the same page looked different from the signature on other pages. Angelina approved the stay away order as to form and content.

Angelina testified she was Alice's caregiver and took care of her every day, even though she did not live with Alice from age twenty-one until October 21, 2022, while her brothers did not even visit Alice. However, Angelina then acknowledged that Leroy lived with Alice from 2021 until her death.

Angelina testified her relationship with her brothers was “fine” until Adam and Leroy told her to take Alice to the hospital in 2022. Things changed, and no one took care of Alice except her. The relationship with Angelina's brothers affected her relationship with Alice and resulted in the civil stay away order. After that order, Angelina did not talk to her brothers, and communication with Alice was restricted.

Angelina, like her brothers, testified she only wanted to uphold her mother's wishes. She testified Alice asked her on September 7, 2022, “to bring her to a lawyer because she didn't trust what David did.” Angelina did not do that because Alice had just had a stroke. She planned “to bring her and abide by her wishes” once Alice got better.

According to Angelina, ten days after Alice testified in Mabel's succession proceeding, “David Blaze took her to Edward Landry's office, and she did not know what she was signing. David Blaze used a power of attorney and my mom didn't even know David had the rights to use the power of attorney.” However, Mr. Landry's credible testimony directly contrasted Angelina's statement. Angelina was unaware that Alice had written four wills starting in 2010.

At the time Angelina filed her original petition, her brothers had not signed their verifications and expressed their wishes “to move forward.” Indeed, in response to Angelina's filing, the brothers filed their own petition to probate her will with David as the executor.

Jeanelle Abatte Shahbazi, Alice's niece and Mabel's daughter, testified she never saw Alice read or write. She lived “right down the road” from Alice, who came to her mother's house “all the time,” until she was “maybe 23, 24.” Jeanelle was 65 at the hearing; she had visited Alice only once or twice a year in the prior thirty years.

Jeanelle testified about a “dream book” belonging to her brother that interpreted dreams. When she was around age eighteen, Alice would come to their house almost every morning and ask them to read to her from the dream book. Alice never asked for help reading anything else. Jeanelle never saw Alice read aloud or help her children with their homework. She had no knowledge of Alice's ability to read during the last forty years.

The trial judge referred to Alice's nephew and Mabel's son, Lonnie Abatte, as the “star” witness at the hearing. Lonnie testified Alice “knew how to read some” and knew “simple words.” He, Alice, and his mother would make a game of reading the dream book, and Alice could read some of the words in it. Alice and sixty-three-year-old Lonnie read the dream book when he was “maybe 16 or 17.”

In opposition to her brothers’ petition for probate, Angelina offered her petition to be appointed as independent executor and the subsequent joint petition alleging Alice died intestate and seeking the appointment of Mr. Gauthier as independent administrator. The testimony of David, Leroy, and Adam provided a reasonable explanation as to why they agreed to the joint petition.

Angelina called Jeanelle as a witness presumably to establish that Alice could not read. Jeanelle, however, testified only that Alice would ask her to read the dream book decades earlier. She could establish nothing about Alice's ability to read in August of 2021. Jeanelle's brother Lonnie also testified about the dream book, saying Alice could read “little words” from it when they read from it as a type of game almost forty years prior to this proceeding. Only Angelina testified Alice could not read in 2021 when she signed the will.

David, Mark, and Adam have no significant interest in Alice's estate if her will is upheld as valid; they each get one-fifth of her entire estate if it is not. Nevertheless, David, Adam, and Leroy consistently maintained throughout the proceeding that their mother could read. They testified they wanted to carry out the wishes their mother set out in her will. Their testimony indicated a close relationship with Alice as well as frequent contact with her.

Angelina, on the other hand, has the most to gain if Alice was unable to read. She is the only witness to mention, without any kind of supporting testimony or evidence, her mother's purported wish to change the terms of the August 6, 2021, will. Her relationships with Alice and David were admittedly strained.

The trial judge assessed the credibility of all the witnesses and found the brothers and Angelina gave reasonable, convincing explanations about why they believed Alice could or could not read. However, he found Lonnie to be the most convincing witness; his testimony carried great weight because he had no interest in the outcome of the proceeding.

The trial judge determined the testimony and evidence supported a finding that Alice could read. Alice's will was presumed to be valid, and the brothers offered evidence to support that presumption. Angelina failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to overcome that presumption. We find the trial judge's credibility assessments are supported by the record, and we will not disturb them.

CONCLUSION

The trial court correctly excluded the transcript of Alice's prior testimony as hearsay. The judge did not pre-judge the issue of Alice's ability to read, and he correctly upheld the attorney-client privilege between Mr. Landry and the brothers.

We find no manifest error in the trial court's ruling that Alice could read when she signed her will on August 6, 2021. Angelina did not bear her burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Alice could not read and thus overcome the presumption that Alice's will was valid. We affirm the trial court's judgment probating the will and confirming David as the executor with costs of the appeal assessed to Angelina.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We refer to Alice Blaze and her children by their first names to avoid confusion.

Pickett, Chief Judge, dissents and assigns written reasons.