SUCCESSION OF LORRAINE BREISACHER PICNOT v. << (2025)

AFFIRMED

JJM

SMC

MEJ

The appellant, Michael Picnot, seeks a review of the January 8, 2025 judgment of possession rendered in his mother's succession. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Lorraine Picnot died testate on January 2, 2018. In her will, she left one-half of her estate to her daughter, Gail Picnot Nalley, the appellee, and one-fourth to Michael. The will placed the remaining one-fourth in a trust for the benefit of Michael's two adult sons, naming Gail as the trustee.

Gail filed a petition to probate the will and be confirmed as independent testamentary executrix on November 12, 2018. Michael propounded interrogatories and requests for production of documents to Gail. Gail responded by forwarding her and Lorraine's bank records from 2013 until the time of her response to Michael's attorney. On May 27, 2022, Michael filed a motion to compel answers to the interrogatories and requests for production of documents, claiming the prior responses were incomplete. This motion was continued and reset without a date. Michael's attorney withdrew from the proceedings. Michael hired another attorney, who requested that the court hear the prior motions to compel, as well as a motion to remove Gail as executrix. Although the motions were set for hearing several times, the hearing was continued, and the appellate record does not contain a ruling on these motions.

On November 15, 2023, Gail filed a petition for possession, along with a detailed descriptive list and a final accounting for the succession. Michael filed a motion to traverse the final accounting and to remove Gail as executrix, alleging financial improprieties by Gail. Gail filed an opposition to Michael's motions.

At the hearing on the motion to traverse, Michael testified as to several alleged instances before Lorraine died in which Gail deposited money from Lorraine's account into her own account. When Gail's attorney objected to testimony regarding alleged actions that occurred before Lorraine's death, Michael's attorney stated that before Lorraine's death, Gail had used Lorraine's money for her own personal expenses. The trial judge explained that any actions taken by Gail before Lorraine's death were not before the court, as this was solely a succession proceeding. The trial judge elaborated that any action regarding alleged financial improprieties by Gail before Lorraine's death would have had to be brought in a separate action and was now prescribed. At that point, the trial judge granted Michael's attorney's request for a recess. When the hearing resumed, Michael's attorney moved to dismiss the motion to traverse without prejudice to investigate whether it was too late to bring an action regarding financial improprieties that took place before Lorraine's death. The trial judge granted the motion to dismiss, signed the judgment of possession, and approved the final accounting.

On March 6, 2024, Michael filed a motion for appeal in proper person.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

In his counseled appellate brief, Michael repeats many of the same arguments made in the trial court regarding Gail's alleged financial improprieties. Michael claims that approximately $220,000.00 has been “misdirected” by Gail into her personal account and used for her personal benefit. He requests that this Court remand this matter to the trial court to include money that was excluded from the estate for an amended final accounting and distribution. However, the appellant has failed to brief this argument properly. Rule 2-12.4(4) of the Uniform Rules for the Courts of Appeal states that the Court may consider an assignment of error or issue raised for review as abandoned if it has not been briefed. Restating an assignment of error in a brief without argument or citation of authority does not constitute briefing. H & O Investments, L.L.C. v. Parish of Jefferson, 21-188 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/24/21), 347 So.3d 1074, 1083 n.8.

Moreover, during the hearing on the traversal of the final accounting, Michael, who was present in court with counsel, voluntarily dismissed his motion to traverse the final accounting. The trial judge stated that she would sign the judgment of possession and approve the final accounting submitted by Gail. Neither Michael nor his attorney objected. A party that voluntarily agrees to a judgment cannot appeal that judgment. La. C.C.P. art. 2085.

Shortly after the trial judge approved the final accounting and signed the judgment of possession, Gail filed a motion to amend the final accounting, explaining that an IRA account was erroneously included in the final accounting. The IRA account had a beneficiary declaration designating that Michael and Gail each receive half of the IRA account. This resulted in Michael receiving $10,000.00 more than the amount shown in the final accounting. The record does not contain an objection to the motion to amend the final accounting. The motion was set for a hearing, but Michael filed his appeal before the scheduled hearing, so no hearing was held.

On appeal, Michael attempts to use the motion to amend the final accounting to support his argument that this appeal is premature. However, as with the other issues raised in his brief, Michael has not properly briefed this issue. Furthermore, Michael does not dispute that he has withdrawn his share of the IRA funds, rendering this motion moot.

Finally, Gail requests sanctions for this frivolous appeal. An appellate court may not award damages for a frivolous appeal when the party requesting such damages has not filed an appeal or an answer to the appeal. La. C.C.P. art. 2133. A request for such damages in a brief is not sufficient. Bias v. Haley, 23-0281 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/3/23), 383 So.3d 175, 189. Gail has neither filed an appeal nor submitted an answer to the appeal, so we are unable to award the requested damages.

CONCLUSION

For the preceding reasons, we affirm the January 8, 2025 judgment of possession.

AFFIRMED

FIFTH CIRCUIT

101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)

POST OFFICE BOX 489

GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054

www.fifthcircuit.org

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CHIEF JUDGE

FREDERICKA H. WICKER

JUDE G. GRAVOIS

MARC E. JOHNSON

STEPHEN J. WINDHORST

JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.

SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL

TIMOTHY S. MARCEL

JUDGES

CURTIS B. PURSELL CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK

LINDA M. TRAN FIRST DEPUTY CLERK

MELISSA C. LEDET DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF

(504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY

I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY NOVEMBER 26, 2025 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

CURTIS B. PURSELL CLERK OF COURT

25-CA-229

E-NOTIFIED

24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)

HONORABLE SHAYNA BEEVERS MORVANT (DISTRICT JUDGE)

ANTHONY L. GLORIOSO (APPELLANT)

STEPHEN N. CHESNUT (APPELLANT)

GEORGE J. NALLEY, JR. (APPELLEE)

MAILED

MICHAEL PICNOT (APPELLANT) 2617 INGRID LANE METAIRIE, LA 70003

JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. JUDGE