SUCCESSION OF FISHER v. << (2026)

Plaintiffs, Shawn Poullard and John Poullard, appeal the trial court's grant of an exception of no right of action, resulting in the dismissal of their claims set forth in their November 4, 2024 lawsuit and the denial of their motion for a new trial thereafter. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

George Fisher died in a car accident on March 10, 2013. He died intestate, unmarried, and both of his parents had predeceased him. On September 25, 2013, an order was signed appointing Mr. Fisher's uncle, Harry Fisher, as executor of the estate and succession of Mr. Fisher.¹ This triggered a series of lawsuits over several years filed by Shawn Poullard seeking to be recognized as an heir of Mr. Fisher, and by John Poullard seeking monies from Mr. Fisher's estate.

On November 12, 2013, Shawn Poullard filed a Petition for Filiation in a matter entitled “Shawn Poullard v. Harry Fisher In His Capacity As The Executor Of The Estate Of George Fisher,” bearing docket No. 13-5512, to establish himself as an heir of Mr. Fisher. This petition was met with exceptions of prescription, preemption, and no right of action based on former La.Civ.Code art. 209. Following a hearing, a judgment was signed on May 4, 2015, granting the exceptions as to Shawn Poullard's attempt to establish filiation seeking to be recognized as an heir of Mr. Fisher.²

Prior to the signing of the judgment, Shawn Poullard and John Poullard filed a petition on April 20, 2015, under docket No. 15-1569 entitled, “Petition: Damages and Property, Petition to Nullify Executor of George Fisher Estate, Petition for Fraud, and Intentionally Tort, Intentionally Misrepresentation Malpractice, Petition to Compel Return of Property” against, among others, Harry Fisher, as executor of the estate of Mr. Fisher. The petition asserted fraud, conspiracy, intentional tort, malpractice, nullity of the executor's appointment and a demand for the return of property. The petition also asserted that Shawn Poullard had promised money and a car to his uncle, John Poullard, from the estate of Mr. Fisher but Harry Fisher, as the executor of the estate, had blocked the payment. Defendants filed an exception of no cause of action asserting that neither Plaintiff had an interest in the succession of Mr. Fisher, and an exception of lis pendens as to Shawn Poullard. On August 11, 2015, the trial court granted the exception of no cause of action as to John Poullard and dismissed his claims. The trial court also granted the exception of lis pendens as to the claims for recovery of tort damages asserted by Shawn Poullard as these claims were already pending in docket No. 13-5512, ordering that those claims be consolidated with Shawn Poullard's claims in docket No. 13-5512. As to the other claims of Shawn Poullard against Harry Fisher, individually and as executor of the estate of Mr. Fisher, the exception of lis pendens was also granted, and those claims were transferred to the succession proceeding captioned “Succession of George Fisher,” bearing docket No. 13-1294.

On August 13, 2015, in the matter entitled “Succession of George Fisher,” bearing docket No. 13-1294, a consent judgment was signed granting Shawn Poullard ownership of the home and property where he had been living, from the estate of Mr. Fisher, as well as providing him with $90,301.00 from the wrongful death funds deposited in the Estate of George Fisher account. The judgment also indicated that all suits filed by Plaintiff or Defendants against each other, whether in the district court or Eunice City court, were dismissed with prejudice.

On August 20, 2015, in the matter entitled “Shawn Poullard v. Harry Fisher,” docket No. 13-5512, Shawn Poullard filed a motion and order to dismiss his suit against all Defendants, specifically the Estate of George Fisher, Harry Fisher, individually and as executor of the estate of Mr. Fisher, with prejudice. The order was signed by the judge on that same day.

On January 23, 2017, Shawn Poullard filed a petition entitled “Shawn Poullard v. Harry Fisher Executor of George Fisher Estate Succession” bearing docket No. 13-1294, requesting the removal of Harry Fisher as executor of Mr. Fisher's estate and to have himself appointed executor instead. A hearing on this petition was held March 10, 2017, during which Shawn Poullard argued that Harry Fisher should be removed as executor because he had failed to prove that Mr. Fisher had died with sufficient evidence including the failure to file a declaration of death at the time he sought appointment as the estate's executor as provided by La.Civ.Code arts. 55 and 56.³ The trial court rejected Shawn Poullard's argument and noted that a declaration of death is only necessary where a person is missing and it was common knowledge that Mr. Fisher had died in the car accident.

Following an appeal by Shawn Poullard, this court affirmed the trial court's ruling that a declaration of death as contemplated by La.Civ.Code arts. 55 and 56 was not required and there was no evidence presented to justify the removal of Harry Fisher as executor.⁴

In response to this court's opinion, Shawn Poullard, on November 22, 2017, filed a petition entitled “Shawn Poullard v. Harry Fisher Testamentary Executor of George Fisher Estate Succession,” bearing docket No. 13-1294, for the removal of Harry Fisher as executor of the estate of Mr. Fisher and for his appointment as the administrator of the estate. In the petition, it was alleged that Shawn had discovered from our November 2, 2017 opinion that Harry Fisher could not be the testamentary executor because he failed to prove Mr. Fisher died testate.⁵ The matter was set for a hearing on December 22, 2017. According to the minutes of the court on that date, the trial court denied the removal of Harry Fisher as the administrator but did order that Harry Fisher amend the Detailed Descriptive List.

On September 21, 2023, John and Shawn Poullard filed a “Petition for Damages, Absolute Nullity Misrepresentation Through Fraud Ill Practices Misrepresentation” in the matter entitled “John Poullard and Shawn Poullard v. Donald Mayeaux, and Harry Fisher,” bearing docket No. 23-2153. The petition asserted that there was an affidavit signed by Mr. Fisher allegedly acknowledging that Shawn Poullard was the biological son of Mr. Fisher and that Donald Mayeaux committed fraud by concealing said affidavit. The petition also asserted that Shawn Poullard had agreed to pay John Poullard a sum of money from Shawn's inheritance in the estate of Mr. Fisher and from the tort suit for the wrongful death of Mr. Fisher.

Harry Fisher and Donald Mayeaux responded to the petition by filing exceptions of res judicata, prescription, and no cause of action.

The trial court in its December 4, 2023 reasons for judgment, stated that the issues in this matter were in large part contained in other lawsuits filed with the 27th judicial district court which were contained in matters entitled, “Succession of George Fisher,” bearing docket No. 13-1294; “Shawn Poullard v. Harry Fisher in his capacity as the Executor of the Estate of George Fisher,” bearing docket No. 13-5512; and “Petition: Damages and Property, Petition to Nullify Executor of George Fisher Estate, Petition for Fraud, and Intentionally Tort, Intentionally Misrepresentation Malpractice, Petition to Compel Return of Property,” bearing docket No. 15-1569. The trial judge noted that all of the other lawsuits except the current one and the suit with docket No.13-1294 had been settled and dismissed.

In initially addressing the exception of res judicata, the trial judge noted that the issue of filiation had already been decided in the matter entitled, “Shawn Poullard v. Harry Fisher,” docket No. 13-5512, where the court on May 4, 2015, granted the exception of prescription as to Shawn Poullard's attempt to establish filiation for the purpose of being recognized as a succession heir of Mr. Fisher. The court did allow filiation for the purpose of recovering tort damages for the wrongful death of Mr. Fisher. This previous judgment was valid and final, involved the same parties, the same cause of action, and arose out of the same facts as in the present suit. Therefore, the exception of res judicata was granted.

As to the claims against the attorney, Donald Mayeaux, for allegedly concealing the affidavit, the court noted that since Shawn Poullard was denied filiation due to prescription, whether or not the affidavit was produced would be of no consequence since Shawn could not inherit from Mr. Fisher as his heir. Therefore, the affidavit was moot as a result of the prior ruling in “Shawn Poullard v. Harry Fisher,” in docket No. 13-5512. Also, the court found that any claims that might be asserted against Mr. Mayeaux had already prescribed.

Finally, the court held that John Poullard had no cause of action against either Defendant. John alleged that he was not paid because Mr. Mayeaux did not pay Shawn and the funds Shawn should have been paid would have been utilized to pay him. However, the court noted that no documents were filed that would establish that Mr. Mayeaux agreed to pay John any money. If John had any claim, it would be against Shawn, not Mr. Mayeaux. A judgment to this effect was signed on December 4, 2023.

On November 4, 2024, Plaintiffs, Shawn Poullard and John Poullard, filed the instant matter in yet another petition entitled “Petition to Remove Harry Fisher As The Administrator of George Estate” in the matter of “Succession of George Fisher,” docket No. 13-1294. This petition asserted that Harry Fisher should be removed as the executor of Mr. Fisher's estate due to mismanagement of the estate. The petition also asserted that Shawn Poullard and John Poullard should be given their ownership of the estate. Once again, Harry Fisher, as administrator of the estate, filed an exception of no right of action.

The hearing on the exception was held on January 31, 2025. Following the hearing, a judgment was signed on February 27, 2025, decreeing that John Poullard and Shawn Poullard had no right of action in the Succession of Mr. Fisher. The trial court also held that the action to remove Harry Fisher as the administrator of the Succession of Mr. Fisher was moot.

A motion for new trial was filed by Shawn and John Poullard asserting that the trial judge violated the United States Supremacy Clause, art. VI clause 2 and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A hearing on the motion for new trial was held on March 20, 2025. A judgment was signed on April 22, 2025, denying the motion for a new trial. In response to the trial court's judgment, Plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal asserting a single assignment of error (first alteration in original):⁶

The district court judge erroneously granted the exception of no right of action against the heir son of the late George Fisher Shawn Poullard and John Poullard and denied the petition to remove Harry Fisher as moot and denied the motion for new trial after the judge himself admitted on the court records that [paternity] has already been proven that Shawn Poullard is the son of the late George Fisher and erroneous [sic] denied the motion for new trial violates the U.S. Supremacy Clause and state supreme court ruling in Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762 (1977). Paternity. Payne v. Quinn, 565 So. 2d. 1049 (La.App. 3rd Cir.) [sic].

OPINION

During the March 20, 2025 hearing on the motion for a new trial contesting the trial court's grant of Harry Fisher's exception of no right of action and denying the petition to remove him as administrator as moot, the trial judge noted that these issues had been litigated multiple times before. In the suit entitled “Shawn L. Poullard v. Harry Fisher, et al.,” docket No. 13-5512, the court issued a judgment decreeing that Shawn Poullard's attempt to establish filiation for the purposes of being recognized as an heir of Mr. Fisher had prescribed under La.Civ.Code art. 209, since he was required to bring an action within nineteen years of his birth or within one year of the death of Mr. Fisher, which ever occurred first. He did not do so. A judgment to this effect was signed on May 4, 2015, and since it was not appealed, that judgment became final. Therefore, Shawn Poullard could not establish filiation for the purpose of being recognized as an heir of Mr. Fisher.

The trial court also took note of Shawn and John Poullard's April 20, 2015, suit entitled, “Damages and Property, Petition to Nullify Executor of George Fisher Estate, Petition for Fraud, and Intentionally Tort, Intentionally Misrepresentation, Malpractice, Petition to Compel Return of Property” against, among others, Harry Fisher, individually and as executor of the estate of George Fisher, under docket No. 15-1569. The petition asserted that Shawn Poullard had promised money and a car to his uncle, John Poullard, from the estate of Mr. Fisher but Harry Fisher, as the executor of the estate, had blocked the payment. Defendants filed an exception of no cause of action asserting that neither Plaintiff had an interest in the succession of Mr. Fisher. They also filed an exception of lis pendens as against Shawn Poullard. The trial court on August 11, 2015, granted the exception of no cause of action as to John Poullard and dismissed his claims. As to the claims of Shawn Poullard against Harry Fisher individually and as executor of the estate of Mr. Fisher the exception of lis pendens was also granted, and those claims were transferred to the succession proceeding captioned “Succession of George Fisher,” having docket No. 13-1294.

We find that the trial court was correct in determining that neither Shawn nor John Poullard had a right of action regarding the succession of Mr. Fisher as neither were heirs of Mr. Fisher for succession purposes. In In re Succession of Guidry, 06-1089, pp. 1-3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/06), 945 So.2d 187, 188–89 (second alteration in original), this court explained:

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 681 states: “Except as otherwise provided by law, an action can be brought only by a person having a real and actual interest which he asserts.” A persons [sic] who is not an heir of the testator can not maintain an action to annul the testator's will. Succession of Gardiner, 366 So.2d 1065 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writs denied, 369 So.2d 154, and 369 So.2d 156 (La.1979); Succession of Wilson, 210 So.2d 602 (La.App. 2 Cir.), writ refused, 252 La. 838, 214 So.2d 162 (La.1968), appeal dismissed, certiorari denied, 394 U.S. 713, 89 S.Ct. 1465, 22 L.Ed.2d 673, appeal dismissed, certiorari denied, 394 U.S. 713, 89 S.Ct. 1470, 22 L.Ed.2d 764 [(1969)].

In Estate of Mallet v. Mallet, 527 So.2d 30 (La.App. 3 Cir.1988), writ denied, 528 So.2d 155 (La.1988), we stated the following:

C.C.P. art. 2972 provides:

“ART. 2972. OPPOSITIONS

An opposition to the petition, motion, or other application of a party to a succession proceeding for an order or judgment of the court shall be in writing and be filed within the delay allowed. It shall comply with the provisions of Articles 853 through 863; shall state the name, surname, and domicile of the opponent; shall allege the interest of opponent in filing the opposition, and the grounds for opposing the petition, motion, or other application; and shall conclude with a prayer for appropriate relief.”

For one to be allowed to oppose a succession proceeding, one must have a justiciable interest in doing so. One must therefore be able to benefit from the attack. Succession of Kilpatrick, 356 So.2d 1083 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1978), writ denied 359 So.2d 198 (La.1978), appeal after remand, 422 So.2d 464 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1982), writ denied, 429 So.2d 126 (La.1983). The interest may come in the form of being named as executor of the estate, see Kilpatrick, supra, or as attorney for a succession, see Succession of Pope, 230 La. 1049, 89 So.2d 894 (La.1956), or gaining an interest as an heir or legatee.

In the case sub judice, Gail Guidry would neither inherit nor share in any inheritance from the testator, her father, even if the testament were annulled. The Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the exception of no right of action in Badeaux v. Southwest Computer Bureau, Inc., 05-0612, pp. 6-7 (La. 3/17/06), 929 So.2d 1211, 1216–17:

[T]he focus in an exception of no right of action is on whether the particular plaintiff has a right to bring the suit․

The function of an exception of no right of action is a determination of whether plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the petition. La. C.C.P. art. 927; Turner v. Busby, 03-3444, p. 4 (La. 9/9/04), 883 So.2d 412, 415. The exception of no right of action serves to question whether the plaintiff in the particular case is a member of the class of persons that has a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation. Id.

Following the January 31, 2025 hearing on the petition to remove the administrator and the exception of no right of action, the trial judge in his oral reasons noted that he had previously signed a January 3, 2024 judgment in docket No. 23-02153 granting the exception of res judicata as to the claims of John Poullard and Shawn Poullard since those claims had been litigated and decided. The trial court held that based on the judgments rendered in the prior proceedings, neither John nor Shawn Poullard had a justiciable interest or standing in the succession and the exception of no right of action was granted. The trial court held that with that ruling, the petition filed by John and Shawn Poullard was now moot.

We agree with the trial court's grant of the exception of no right of action. Neither Plaintiff had an interest in the succession of Mr. Fisher, and there had been multiple rulings and judgments to this effect previously.

Regarding the criteria for the granting of a new trial, we explained in Smith v. Alliance Compressors, 05-855, pp. 6-7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/1/06), 922 So.2d 674, 678–79 (alteration in original):

Generally, new trials are granted in the interest of justice and are largely left to the discretion of the trial judge. Succession of Robinson, 186 La. 389, 172 So. 429 (1936). Trial courts are vested with the power to grant new trials on either discretionary or peremptory grounds. La.Code Civ.P. arts. 1972, 1973. There are three peremptory grounds that may serve as the basis for granting a new trial:

A new trial shall be granted, upon contradictory motion of any party, in the following cases:

(1) When the verdict or judgment appears clearly contrary to the law and the evidence.

(2) When the party has discovered, since the trial, evidence important to the cause, which he could not, with due diligence, have obtained before or during the trial.

(3) When the jury was bribed or has behaved improperly so that impartial justice has not been done.

La.Code Civ.P. art. 1972. The discretionary grounds for granting a new trial are set forth in La.Code Civ.P. art. 1973, which states that a new trial may be granted at the discretion of the judge “․ in any case if there is good ground therefor, except as otherwise provided by law.” This has been interpreted to mean that “[w]hen the trial judge is convinced by his examination of the facts that the judgment would result in a miscarriage of justice, a new trial should be ordered.” Lamb v. Lamb, 430 So.2d 51, 53 (La.1983) (citations omitted).

Appellate review of the grant or denial of a motion for new trial under La.Code Civ.P. arts. 1972 and 1973 is governed by the abuse of discretion standard, which prohibits this court from reversing the actions of a trial court unless an abuse of discretion can be demonstrated. Davis v. Coregis, 2000-475 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/27/00), 789 So.2d 7, writ denied, 2001-292 (La.3/30/2001), 788 So.2d 1192. The supreme court has also held, however, that appellate courts should not hesitate to reverse trial court judgments upon review of rulings on motions for new trial, if allowing the lower court judgment to stand would serve “to permit technical pleading rules to triumph over actual justice.” Lamb, 430 So.2d at 54.

Following the March 20, 2025 hearing on the motion for new trial, the trial court noted that none of the grounds for a new trial were present and, therefore, denied the request. We agree with the trial court that none of the grounds required by La.Code Civ.P. arts. 1972 or 1973 were present. John and Shawn Poullard presented nothing but the same arguments that had been rejected numerous times before, and certainly nothing that would warrant a new trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial, and, therefore, we affirm the judgment denying the motion.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the trial court granting the exception of no right of action and denying the motion for new trial are affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Shawn Poullard and John Poullard.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In that Mr. Fisher died intestate, the correct term “administrator” should have been utilized rather than “executor.” See La.Code Civ.P. art. 3091, et seq.

2.   According to the March 17, 2015 Reasons for Judgment by Judge Alonzo Harris in Docket No. 13-5512, Shawn Poullard turned nineteen on November 18, 1992. Under former La.Civ.Code art. 209, in effect when Shawn Poullard turned nineteen, a paternity action was required to be instituted within nineteen years of the child's birth or within one year from the alleged parent's death, whichever occurred first. 2005 La. Acts No. 192, § 1, effective June 29, 2005, repealed La.Civ.Code art. 209 and redesignated it as La.Civ.Code art. 197. The May 4, 2015 judgment on the exception of prescription and no cause of action provided that although Shawn Poullard's action to establish filiation for the purposes of being recognized as an heir of Mr. Fisher was prescribed, his action to establish filiation for the purpose of recovering damages under La.Civ.Code art. 2315 for Mr. Fisher's wrongful death was not prescribed. The results from a 2014 DNA test showed a 99.9% chance that Shawn Poullard was the son of Mr. Fisher.

3.   Louisiana Civil Code Article 55 provides, “The succession of the person declared dead shall be opened as of the date of death fixed in the judgment, and his estate shall devolve in accordance with the law of successions.”Louisiana Civil Code Article 56 provides:If there is clear and convincing new evidence establishing a date of death other than that determined in the judgment of declaration of death, the judgment shall be amended accordingly.Persons previously recognized as successors are bound to restore the estate to the new successors but may keep the fruits they have gathered.

4.   Succession of Fisher, 17-402 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/17), (2017 WL 5067490) (unpublished opinion).

5.   To the contrary, this court noted there was no indication Mr. Fisher died testate. See 2017 WL 5067490, *3 n.2.

6.   In that a judgment denying a motion for new trial is an interlocutory order, not a final appealable judgment, this court on June 30, 2025, issued an order for appellants, Shawn and John Poullard, to show cause, by brief only, why this appeal should not be dismissed as having been taken from a non-appealable interlocutory order. On July 7, 2025, this court issued an order stating that appellants’ response to the prior rule to show cause indicated that they intended to appeal the underlying final judgment granting the exception of no right of action and the dismissal of their claims. Therefore, for good cause shown, the rule to show cause order was recalled.

KYZAR, Judge.