SUCCESSION OF BRIERRE

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 31554.

Attorney(S)

Dart Dart, Louis C. Guidry, and Robert Ewing, Jr., all of New Orleans, for tutrix Mrs. Elvina Wall. Eugene J. McGivney, Monroe Lemann, and Milling, Godchaux, Saal Milling, all of New Orleans, for respondent Whitney Trust Savings Bank.

Judges

LAND, J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The case concerns the succession of Theodore F. Brierre, who died intestate leaving a widow and one minor child. The estate consisted solely of the decedent's one-half interest in the community property, including a deposit account balance of $262.26 at the Whitney Central Trust Savings Bank. The surviving widow qualified as natural tutrix and, while administering the minor's estate, demanded the deposit from the bank upon presentation of her letters of tutorship. The bank refused to release the funds on that basis alone. The trial court ordered the bank to pay the deposit to the tutrix, but on appeal, the Court of Appeal for the parish of Orleans reversed that judgment. The tutrix sought review by the Supreme Court of Louisiana via certiorari.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a bank can safely transfer a deceased person's deposit account to a tutrix upon presentation of her letters of tutorship alone, or whether additional documentation such as a court judgment recognizing and putting the minor heir in possession is required under Act No. 64 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.).
Whether the provisions of Act No. 64 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.) mandatorily require such documentation for the bank's protection in transferring funds to a tutrix.
Whether prior jurisprudence allowing a tutor to administer a succession to minors without appointment as administrator remains valid in light of Act No. 64 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.).

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent Bank's Arguments

The bank relies on Act No. 64 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.) to argue that it cannot safely transfer the deposit to the tutrix upon presentation of her letters of tutorship alone.
The bank contends that the statute requires either a judgment of court recognizing and putting the minor heir in possession or that the tutrix qualify as administratrix before the bank can be protected in making the transfer.

Tutrix's Arguments

The tutrix argues that Act No. 64 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.) does not mandate such additional requirements beyond presentation of letters of tutorship.
Even if the act could be construed to require more, the tutrix contends the act is not mandatory.
The tutrix relies on settled Louisiana jurisprudence permitting a tutor to administer a succession to which minors alone are entitled without appointment as administrator, citing Bryan v. Atchison, Bourgeois' Succession, and Deshotels v. Lafleur.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Bryan v. Atchison, 2 La. Ann. 462 (1847)	Supports the principle that a tutor may administer succession to minors without appointment as administrator.	Referenced by the tutrix to argue that letters of tutorship alone suffice to administer the succession.
Bourgeois' Succession, 43 La. Ann. 247, 9 So. 34 (1891)	Supports the tutrix's position on administration of succession by tutors.	Used to bolster the argument that prior jurisprudence permits administration by tutors absent creditors' demands.
Deshotels v. Lafleur, 134 La. 1052, 64 So. 905 (1914)	Further supports the tutrix's position regarding administration of succession by tutors.	Relied upon to show longstanding jurisprudence allowing tutors to administer succession for minors.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the provisions of Act No. 64 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.), particularly section 1, which permits banks to transfer deposits of deceased persons to heirs, executors, administrators, or tutors upon presentation of certain documents. The court noted that while letters of executors or administrators alone suffice as full authority and protection for the bank, the statute explicitly excludes tutors from this provision. For tutors, the statute requires both a judgment from a competent court recognizing and putting the minor heir in possession, and the letters of tutorship to be presented to the bank to fully authorize and protect the transfer.

The court emphasized that it cannot add to or subtract from these statutory requirements, as the legislature intended a uniform law to protect banks. Section 2 of the act reinforces this interpretation by requiring the receipt signed by the tutor to be accompanied by certified copies of the judgment putting the minor in possession and the tutor's letters. The court concluded that any prior jurisprudence conflicting with these explicit statutory requirements must yield to the legislative mandate.

Accordingly, the court held that the bank is entitled to demand the documents prescribed by law and cannot be compelled to release funds based on less than what the statute requires for its protection.

Holding and Implications

The judgment of the Court of Appeal for the parish of Orleans is affirmed.

The court's decision directly affects the parties by upholding the bank's right to demand statutory documentation before releasing the deposit to the tutrix. This ruling clarifies that Act No. 64 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.) imposes mandatory documentary requirements on banks for protection when transferring funds to tutors. The court did not establish new precedent beyond interpreting and enforcing the existing statute. The tutrix is thus not entitled to the deposit upon presentation of letters of tutorship alone.

Show full summary ...

SUCCESSION OF BRIERRE. IN RE WALL.

LAND, J.

Theodore F. Brierre died intestate, leaving a widow and one minor child, and an estate consisting solely of decedent's one-half interest in the community of acquêts and gains.

Among the assets of the community was a balance of deposit account in the sum of $262.26 in the Whitney Central Trust Savings Bank of the city of New Orleans.

The surviving widow qualified as natural tutrix, and, while administering as such the estate to which the minor was entitled, made a demand upon the bank for this deposit, upon presentation only of her letters of tutorship.

This demand having been refused, the bank, after hearing had upon rule, was ordered by the trial judge to pay the amount of the deposit to the tutrix of the minor.

On appeal by the bank, the Court of Appeal for the parish of Orleans reversed the judgment of the lower court, and the case is now before us for review under a writ of certiorari.

The bank relies upon Act No. 64 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.), and contends that, under the express provisions of that act, it cannot safely turn over the deposit to the tutrix upon presentation of her letters of tutorship, unless it is also shown that the minor heir has been put in possession of the estate and recognized as the only heir by judgment of court, or unless she qualifies as administratrix.

The tutrix contends that Act No. 64 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.), properly interpreted, does not provide for such requirements, and, even if it can be so construed, the act is not mandatory, and that, accordingly, the tutrix is entitled to the deposit in question upon presentation of her letters of tutorship, on the ground that the settled jurisprudence of this state allows a tutor to administer a succession to which the minors alone are entitled, so long as no creditor demands the appointment of administrator. 70 A.L.R. p. 397, note, citing Bryan v. Atchison (1847) 2 La. Ann. 462; Bourgeois' Succession (1891) 43 La. Ann. 247, 9 So. 34; Deshotels v. Lafleur (1914) 134 La. 1052, 64 So. 905.

The material portions of Act No. 64 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.) are as follows:

"Section 1. That it shall be lawful for any national bank, state bank or banking association to transfer any balance of deposit account of any deceased person, or any other property of any deceased person in its possession, to the heirs, executors or administrators of the said deceased person, or to the tutors, curators or other legal representatives of such heirs; and the letters of such executors or administrators issued by any court of competent jurisdiction, or the judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction recognizing and putting such heirs in possession accompanied, if said heirs be not sui juris, by the letters of their tutors, curators or other legal representatives issued by any court of competent jurisdiction, shall be full and sufficient authority for the making of said transfer, which when so made, shall be a full protection to any such national bank," etc.

It is expressly provided in this section that "the letters of such executors or administrators [omitting tutors] issued by any court of competent jurisdiction * * * shall be full and sufficient authority for the making of said transfer," and "a full protection" to the bank.

It is clear, therefore, that this particular provision does not include tutors, and does not make the letters alone issued to them by any court of competent jurisdiction "full and sufficient authority" for the making of the transfer, and "full protection" to the bank.

The provisions of this section, however, that do apply to tutors, require the presentation to a bank by the tutor of a judgment of a competent court recognizing and putting the heirs into possession, accompanied by the letters of the tutor, if the heirs be not sui juris or minors, before the bank can be fully authorized and protected in making the transfer to the tutor.

The presentation to the bank by the tutor of these documents constitutes the sole authority and only protection afforded the bank by the statute in making its transfer of the deposit in any case to the tutor; and this court is without authority to add to or take from such requirements, as it was manifestly the intention of the Legislature to enact a uniform law for the protection of the banks of the state, when called upon to deliver any balance of deposit account or any other property of a deceased person to the heirs, or to their legal representatives.

That the interpretation we have placed upon the provisions of section 1 of Act No. 64 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.) is correct is clearly shown by a mere recital of the provisions contained in section 2 of the act, which are as follows:

"Section 2. That such national banks, state banks or banking associations are hereby authorized to transfer said balances of deposit and said property on any form of receipt signed by said executors or administrators of said deceased persons, accompanied by a copy of the letters of such executors or administrators, duly certified as hereinabove set forth, or signed by the heirs of said deceased persons, if sui juris, accompanied by a copy of the judgment recognizing and putting said heirs in possession, duly certified as hereinabove set forth, or signed by the tutors, curators or other legal representatives of such heirs, if not sui juris, accompanied by a copy of the judgment recognizing and putting such heirs in possession, duly certified as hereinabove set forth, and a copy of the letters of such tutors, curators or other legal representatives, duly certified as hereinabove set forth," etc.

It is plain, therefore, that, when a bank transfers to a tutor a balance of deposit, the receipt must be signed by the tutor, and must be accompanied by a copy of the judgment recognizing and putting the minor in possession, and by a copy of the letters of the tutor. It follows, necessarily, that, if the former jurisprudence of this court is in conflict with these express requirements, it must yield to them, as Act No. 64 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.) is the last expression of legislative will on this subject.

The Court of Appeal, in our opinion, properly held that the bank in this case is entitled to demand the documents, which the law specifically provides as sufficient to protect it, and cannot be compelled to act, if anything less than or different from what the law requires, for the bank's protection, is offered as a substitution.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the Court of Appeal for the parish of Orleans be affirmed, and that relator pay the costs of these proceedings.

ST. PAUL, J., dissents.