## Facts

- Leroy A. Guidry, Sr. (decedent) married Mrs. Frank H. Guidry and had one child, Leroy A. Guidry, Jr. (plaintiff).
- Decedent divorced his first wife in 1954 and soon afterward married Ruth A. Guidry (defendant), who had children from a prior marriage, including Doug A. Hardy (defendant).
- Decedent later lived in California (his domicile at death).
- On May 22, 1968, while in California, decedent executed a document purporting to be his last will and testament.
- The purported will left Leroy Jr. only two items of personal property of limited value, left certain personal property to Hardy, and left the remainder of decedent’s estate to Ruth.
- Decedent died in California on August 13, 1969, owning real and personal property in California and immovable property (real estate) in Louisiana.
- The will was offered for probate in California, and Leroy Jr. opposed it; after trial, the California court declared the will invalid because it was procured through Ruth’s undue influence, and that judgment was affirmed on appeal.
- While the California will contest was still pending, Leroy Jr. filed a separate Louisiana suit against Ruth and Hardy seeking declaratory relief that the purported will was invalid as to Louisiana real estate and that a prior partition agreement between decedent and his first wife was a transfer for adequate consideration (not a disguised donation).
- The Louisiana trial court declared the will invalid and declared the partition agreement to be for adequate consideration; Ruth and Hardy appealed.

## Issues

1. Should the Louisiana proceeding be stayed pending final determination of the related California litigation?
2. Was the will valid “as to form” for purposes of Louisiana law?
3. Were the parties entitled to proceed by declaratory judgment to determine the will’s validity/effect and related property rights?
4. Was the will invalid due to lack of testamentary capacity or undue influence?
5. Was probate/recognition of the will precluded as contra bonos mores (against public policy)?
6. Was the will invalid, or subject to reduction, because the bequests exceeded the disposable portion of the testator’s estate under Louisiana forced-heirship rules?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
- The court declined to stay the Louisiana suit despite the related California proceeding.
- The court held declaratory judgment was an available and proper procedure to resolve the controversy concerning the will’s validity/effect on Louisiana immovables and the related dispute about the earlier partition agreement.
- The court upheld the trial court’s conclusion that the purported will was invalid, relying on the record before it and giving weight to the California court’s determination that the instrument was procured through Ruth’s undue influence.
- The court found no reversible error in the trial court’s findings on testamentary capacity and undue influence.
- The court rejected arguments that the will should be enforced in Louisiana to defeat Louisiana forced-heirship limits and affirmed the trial court’s relief addressing the disposable-portion problem.
- The court affirmed the declaration that the earlier partition agreement between decedent and his first wife was supported by adequate consideration and was not treated as a gratuitous donation.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court later refused writs, stating it found no error of law in the court of appeal’s judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Louisiana courts may adjudicate the validity and effect of a foreign-executed testament insofar as it purports to dispose of Louisiana immovable property; rights in immovables are generally governed by the law of the place where the immovable is located.
- A Louisiana court is not required to stay an action concerning Louisiana immovables merely because related probate litigation is pending in another state.
- Declaratory judgment is available when there is an actual controversy over succession rights and the effect of an instrument on Louisiana property.
- Testamentary capacity is presumed; the party attacking a will must carry a heavy burden and offer very strong proof to overcome the presumption.
- A will procured by undue influence is not the free act of the testator and may be annulled.
- Louisiana forced-heirship limits testamentary freedom by reserving a forced portion for qualifying heirs; dispositions exceeding the disposable portion are subject to reduction or may be denied effect as to Louisiana property.
- Whether a prior agreement is an onerous transfer (for value) or a donation affects what is included in the succession mass and the forced-portion analysis; a partition supported by adequate consideration is treated as a valid transfer for value.

## Conclusion

The Louisiana Third Circuit affirmed a declaratory judgment that annulled a California-executed will as it related to Louisiana property, rejecting requests to delay the case for the California proceedings and sustaining findings of undue influence and lack of capacity, while also affirming that a prior partition between the decedent and his first wife was a transfer for adequate consideration rather than a disguised donation.


Guidry v. Hardy, 254 So. 2d 675 (1972)