THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS v. EDWARD WISNER DONATION THE HONORABLE MAYOR LATOYA CANTRELL IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND AS TRUSTEE MICHAEL PENEGUY SENATOR EDWIN MURRAY MAJOR CHRIS THORNHILL AND PATRICK NORTON (2026)

The 1929 Compromise provided that the Wisner Ladies—the wife and daughters Edward Wisner, who donated the property in dispute—would be recognized as having forty percent:

of the rights, interests, revenues and profits heretofore or hereafter derived from said trust estate and of the proceeds of the trust estate when and if sold․, and as entitled to the same relative rights that all other beneficiaries thereunder may have by virtue of said act of donation, with the same force and effect as if they had originally been named and declared beneficiaries under said act of donation by Edward Wisner, donor, to the extent and interest herein agreed upon.

The foregoing provision along with the circumstances leading to the compromise agreement clearly establish that the Wisner Ladies were more than mere income beneficiaries. Instead, like the City of New Orleans, the Wisner Ladies were also principal beneficiaries, as the above provision expressly provides that they would be entitled to a portion of the proceeds of the trust estate (the corpus) “when and if sold.” An income beneficiary is entitled to receive revenue from the trust property (for example, bond interest, stock dividends, rental payments), whereas a principal beneficiary is entitled to receive the trust property itself at the termination of the trust. 11 La. Civ. L. Treatise, Trusts § 6:2 (3d ed.). The only other beneficiary entitled to the proceeds of such a sale, according to the act of donation executed by Edward Wisner, was the City of New Orleans, which is also recognized as a principal beneficiary. As further provided by the act of donation, such a sale of the trust estate could only occur once the trust had terminated.¹

The lower courts erred in considering the intent of Edward Wisner to interpret the compromise agreement (crafted after his death) and that error led to the improper finding that the compromise solely reallocated the distribution of the income of the trust to the Wisner Ladies. While it may have been Mr. Wisner's intent that the City of New Orleans be recognized as the sole principal beneficiary of the corpus of the trust, the compromise reached by the parties and confirmed by the trial court alone governs the determination of what the Wisner Ladies were —and now their heirs are—entitled. By agreeing to the compromise, the Wisner Ladies forsook the lawsuit they had filed to challenge the validity of Mr. Wisner's donation. In fact, as explained in the confirmation judgment, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit “in view of the uncertainty of the outcome of said suit.”

Although the Wisner Ladies, as quoted in the confirmation judgment, are expressly “recognized as beneficiaries under said act of donation of Edward Wisner to the City of New Orleans” in the compromise agreement, the City of New Orleans was likewise recognized as a beneficiary as well.² Thus, considering the circumstances under which the compromise agreement was reached, as well as the language in the compromise agreement granting the Wisner Ladies “the proceeds of the trust estate when and if sold,” I believe the compromise recognized the Wisner Ladies as being both income and principal beneficiaries, thereby establishing their ownership interest in the property in dispute. In so finding, I would grant the writ application of the Wisner Heirs and hold that they have an ownership interest in the trust corpus.

FOOTNOTES

1.   As stated in Edward Wisner's act of donation:The trusteeship herein provided for shall exist for the term and period of one hundred years from the date hereof, and this donation is made upon the condition that the said City of New Orleans shall, in no way, alienate any part or portion of the lands herein conveyed until one hundred years from the date hereof, except as hereinafter provided for.After the expiration of the said one hundred years, the said City of New Orleans shall be free to dispose of any or all of the said lands in such manner as the City Government may direct, but employing the proceeds thereof for the purposes above set forth only.

2.   As stated in the judgment confirming the compromise agreement reached by the parties, the City of New Orleans, “as beneficiary for the uses and purposes of the several municipal, charitable and educational purposes mentioned in said Act of Donation,” held a 34-8/10 percent interest in the income of the trust. Tulane and Charity Hospital each held a 12 percent interest. The Salvation Army held a 1-2/10 percent interest, with the remaining 40 percent interest being held by the Wisner Ladies.

GUIDRY, J., would grant and assigns reasons.