IN RE: LAJAUNIE FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST (2026)

This appeal arises from a dispute over the management of an irrevocable family trust.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Chester Joseph LaJaunie and Kim Kiyoko Kwak LaJaunie were married and lived in Louisiana. They had two children: Christopher Joseph LaJaunie and Angie Nicole LaJaunie Guillory.

In September 2017, Chester and Kim created the LaJaunie Family Irrevocable Trust. Oversimplifying slightly, the trust designated Chester and Kim as income beneficiaries; it designated Christopher and Angie as co-trustees; and it designated Christopher and Angie as principal beneficiaries. Around the same time, Chester and Kim transferred their Breaux Bridge home to the trust, reserving a lifetime usufruct. And one year after that, they opened a trust bank account.

Chester died in November 2019. At the time of his death, Chester had two life insurance policies with State Farm. The trust was the beneficiary of both policies, and the death benefits totaled $287,940.62.

Christopher, as co-trustee, filed a claim for the insurance proceeds, which were subsequently deposited into the trust account. But Christopher then transferred $286,672.90 of those funds to Kim's personal account. According to Christopher, the funds were necessary to cover the cost of his mother's around-the-clock Alzheimer's care.

Kim died in May 2024. Sixteen months later, Christopher and Angie sold the Breaux Bridge home, and the sale proceeds remain in escrow.

Ultimately, in November 2025, Angie filed this lawsuit. More particularly, she filed on behalf of the trust a motion to compel Christopher to return trust assets (the life insurance proceeds). The motion also sought to remove Christopher as co-trustee. Christopher responded by filing a motion for reimbursement, termination of trust, and distribution of assets.

The hearing on both motions was held on February 26, 2025, and April 14, 2025. At the conclusion of day one, the trial court ordered each party to provide a full accounting of trust assets and to provide complete information for all reimbursement claims. The parties complied. Yet when they returned for day two, the trial court took no evidence. Instead, according to Angie, the “parties and counsel of record appeared for the scheduled hearing. However, in chambers, the Court advised that it had already determined the matter on the basis of memoranda and evidence previously submitted. The Court declined to hear further argument and thereafter returned to the courtroom to announce its ruling.”

The trial court signed its final judgment on May 25, 2025. The court also provided oral and written reasons for judgment. In essence, the trial court found that Christopher's accounting was credible and that Angie had already received $128,774.84 of the $286,672.90 in life insurance proceeds. The trial court then ordered Christopher, as executor of Kim's succession, to “transfer from the [succession] to [Angie] the amount of $14,561.61 and to [Christopher] the amount of $15,393.63 so that each receives the remaining funds necessary to receive his/her share of the $286,672.90 of funds transferred from the [trust] to [Kim].” Next, the court awarded Christopher $34,060.03 “to reimburse him for expenses he incurred related to the immovable property previously owned by the [trust]” and awarded Angie $4,347.27 in reimbursement. The court equally divided the remaining trust assets between Angie and Christopher. It then terminated the trust. Angie has appealed this judgment.

On appeal, Angie asserts the following assignments of error (footnotes omitted):

1) The trial court erred in failing to remove [Christopher], as Co-Trustee, under La R.S. § 9:1789, in failing to compel the return of funds under La R.S. § 9:2221, and in failing to find him personally liable for his breach of fiduciary obligations under La R.S. § 9:2201, despite evidence of serious breaches of fiduciary duty.

2) The trial court erred in offsetting Angie's undisputed share of misappropriated Trust assets using non-Trust assets, including designated beneficiary accounts and IRA proceeds, that are subject to individual income tax, without legal authority, evidentiary support, or factual findings.

3) The trial court lacked jurisdiction to order [Christopher], as the Executor of the Succession of Kim Kwak Kiyoko LaJaunie, to transfer funds to the Trust beneficiaries in the Trust proceeding, and the general principle that a Trust and a Succession are distinct juridical entities governed by different bodies of law.

4) The trial court erred in ordering the reimbursements, the distributions of the house proceeds, the remaining Trust funds, and termination of the Trust, prior to the return of the undisputed misappropriated funds, which violates fiduciary principles and jeopardizes the equitable administration of the Trust.

5) The trial court erred in failing to consider or acknowledge the Trust's obligation to pay the reasonable attorney's fees of a Co-Trustee who incurred those fees while protecting the Trust's interests and seeking to recover the undisputed misappropriated Trust property in accordance with La. R.S. § 9:2221.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

A trial court's findings of fact are reviewed on appeal using the manifest error-clearly erroneous standard of review. Stobart v. State through Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993). To reverse a trial court's determination of fact under this standard, an appellate court must review the record in its entirety and (1) “find from the record that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding of the trial court” and (2) “further determine that the record establishes that the finding is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous).” Id. at 882. By contrast, questions of law are reviewed de novo. Wooley v. Lucksinger, 09-571, 09-584, 09-585, 09-586 (La. 4/1/11), 61 So.3d 507.

First, Second, and Fourth Assignments of Error

In her first assignment of error, Angie challenges the trial court's finding that Christopher did not breach his fiduciary duty of trust. Along this line, Angie seeks review of the trial court's ruling not to remove Christopher as co-trustee and not to compel the return of trust assets. In her second assignment, Angie challenges the trial court's distributions and offsets. And in her fourth assignment, Angie challenges the trial court's reimbursements and its ruling to terminate the trust. Before going further, a short discussion of the substantive law is necessary.

In Louisiana, “[a] violation by a trustee of a duty he owes to a beneficiary ․ is a breach of trust.” La.R.S. 9:2081. The remedies for a breach of trust include compelling the trustee to redress the breach and removal of the trustee. La.R.S. 9:2221. As to removal, La.R.S. 9:1789(A) provides that “[a] trustee shall be removed in accordance with the provisions of the trust instrument or by the proper court for sufficient cause.” However, the court “may excuse a trustee wholly or partly from liability for a breach of trust if the trustee acted honestly and reasonably.” La.R.S. 9:2208.

Now back to the matter before us. As stated earlier, at the conclusion of day one, the trial court ordered each party to provide a full accounting of trust assets and to provide complete information for all reimbursement claims. As to the accounting, the trial court explained: “So that means any monies that's supposed to go into the trust should be accounted for; understand? From both sides. And then once I get that number, I'll be able to determine what to do next.”

Ultimately, the trial court relied heavily on the accountings in rendering judgment. For example, the trial court's oral reasons provide in part:

The Court, at a prior hearing, heard from the parties, mainly Chris LaJaunie and Angie Guillory. The Court then asked both parties to submit ․ a post trial accounting and to provide memorandums.

The Court after reviewing the memorandums and the evidence find[s] Chris LaJaunie credible in the accounting provided.

Similarly, the trial court's written reasons (emphasis added) reflect that it rendered judgment “after reviewing the evidence including the accounting documents and reviewing the post trial briefs[.]” And finally, the judgment itself states that “[a]fter considering the pleadings and memorandums in this matter, the arguments of counsel of record, the testimony of the parties, the accountings of the parties, and the applicable law, the Court finds Christopher Joseph LaJaunie credible in the accounting provided.”

But here is the problem: the accountings were never admitted into evidence. Again, the trial court ordered the accountings at the conclusion of day one. Nearly two weeks later, the accountings were exchanged by the parties and provided to the court. And five weeks after that, the parties appeared in court for day two. But no evidence was taken that day. From what we can tell, the trial court simply took the bench and rendered judgment.

“Evidence not properly and officially offered and introduced cannot be considered, even if it is physically placed in the record. Documents attached to memoranda do not constitute evidence and cannot be considered as such on appeal.” Denoux v. Vessel Mgmt. Srvs., Inc., 07-2143, p. 6 (La. 5/21/08), 983 So.2d 84, 88. Stated differently, “[a]ppellate courts are courts of record and may not review evidence that is not in the appellate record, or receive new evidence.” Id.

To sum up, without the accountings—and without complete information for all reimbursement claims, which was also ordered by the trial court at the conclusion of day one—it is impossible for us to properly review Angie's first, second, and fourth assignments of error. This case must therefore be remanded to correct this oversight.

Third Assignment of Error

In her third assignment, Angie argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order Christopher, as the executor of his mother's succession, to transfer funds from the succession. We agree.

Kim's succession is not a party to this proceeding. Yet the trial court issued the following order:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Christopher Joseph LaJaunie, as the Executor of the Succession of Kim Kiyoko Kwak LaJaunie, shall transfer from the Succession of Kim Kiyoko Kwak LaJaunie to Angie Nicole Guillory the amount of $14,561.61 and to Christopher Joseph LaJaunie the amount of $15,393.63 so that each receives the remaining funds necessary to receive his/her share of the $286,672.90 of funds transferred from the LaJaunie Family Irrevocable Trust to Kim Kiyoko Kwak LaJaunie.

As a matter of law, “a judgment cannot be rendered against a party until that party has been joined in the suit and has been served with process.” Ceco Corp. v. R&M Indus., Inc., 425 So.2d 709, 709 (La.1982). The trial court here legally erred when it ordered Kim's succession to transfer estate assets. Indeed, that part of the judgment is absolutely null.

Fifth Assignment of Error

In her fifth and final assignment, Angie asserts that the trial court erred by not awarding her attorney fees.

At the outset, we agree that a trustee may be entitled to attorney fees pursuant to a trust document or under La.R.S. 9:2191, which indemnifies the trustee from the trust for expenses properly incurred in the administration of the trust. But here, Angie did not request attorney fees at the trial court level: her motion to compel the return of trust funds and to remove co-trustee is silent on this issue. And the trial court did not consider or rule on the issue of attorney fees.

“As a general rule, appellate courts will not consider issues raised for the first time in this court, which are not pleaded in the court below and which the district [court] has not addressed.” Geiger v. State ex rel. Department of Health and Hospitals, 01-2206, p. 11 (La. 4/12/02), 815 So.2d 80, 86.

With that in mind, the issue of attorney fees is not properly before this court.

DISPOSITION

The trial court judgment of May 5, 2025, is vacated, and this case is remanded to determine the admissibility of the accountings ordered by the trial court on March 24, 2025; to determine the admissibility of the reimbursement information ordered by the trial court on March 24, 2025; to determine whether the Succession of Kim Kiyoko Kwak LaJaunie is a necessary party; and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The costs of this appeal are divided equally between the parties.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

FITZGERALD, Judge.