SUCCESSION OF MADDEN v. << (2021)

Writ application denied.

If documents showing the increase of Ms. Chumley's percentage in MPM from 27% to 52% do not exist, they cannot be produced. The remedy is to list Ms. Chumley's ownership in MPM to 27%.

The singular issue before the Court in this writ application is whether the district court abused its discretion in holding Mary Elizabeth Madden Chumley in contempt for failing to produce records to support her longstanding assertion in these proceedings that she is entitled to a higher ownership percentage of the relevant limited liability company without submitting documentation or evidence proving the same. The issue before the court is not whether the ownership interests thereof have been properly allocated.

The background facts of these contentious and complex succession proceedings are set forth in detail in Succession of Johnye Mae Madden, 53,353 (La. App. 2 Cir. 3/4/20), 293 So.3d 665, writ denied, 20-0742 (La. 10/6/20), 302 So.3d 535. The procedural history involves multiple examples of applicant inhibiting the resolution of this succession. See, e.g., id.; Succession of Madden, 52,007 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/21/17), writ denied, 2018-0137 (La. 3/9/18), 237 So. 3d 1176. In light of the troubling facts presented, I agree that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding applicant in contempt.

Hughes, J., dissents and assigns reasons. Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.