Case Name: Patrice V. BERRY et al. v. Barbara Sue BERRY
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1979-04-16
Citations: 371 So. 2d 1346
Docket Number: No. 12250
Parties: Patrice V. BERRY et al. v. Barbara Sue BERRY.
Judges: Before LANDRY, ELLIS, COVINGTON, LOTTINGER, CHIASSON, EDWARDS, PONDER, SARTAIN and BAILES , JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 371
Pages: 1346–1355

Head Matter:
Patrice V. BERRY et al. v. Barbara Sue BERRY.
No. 12250.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
April 16, 1979.
Writ Refused June 11, 1979.
Ashton Stewart, Baton Rouge, of counsel for plaintiff-appellee, Patrice V. Berry et al.
Earl A. Morgan, Baton Rouge, of counsel for defendant-appellant, Barbara Sue Berry-
Before LANDRY, ELLIS, COVINGTON, LOTTINGER, CHIASSON, EDWARDS, PONDER, SARTAIN and BAILES , JJ.
Serving by appointment of the La.Sup.Ct,

Opinion:
PONDER, Judge.
Defendant, Barbara Sue Berry, appealed from the judgment awarding plaintiff judgment on a contract containing a stipulation pour autrui between defendant, plaintiff's aunt, and Doss H. Berry, Jr., plaintiff's father.
The issues are:
(1) Was there a trust?
(2) Was there a contract containing a stipulation pour autrui?
We reverse.
Doss Berry, Jr., plaintiff's father, and Peggy Jo Hilsmeyer Berry, plaintiff's mother, were divorced in 1971. Thereafter, Doss Berry, Jr., made his sister Barbara Sue Berry the beneficiary of. life insurance policies totaling $59,500.00. Defendant testified her brother looked into the possibility of setting up a trust estate but decided against it because of the expense and the inflexibility. Instead, he told her he wanted her to pay his debts, care for their father, who was an invalid in a nursing home, and to "act as a backstop for the education of his two children." Miss Berry testified to these purposes in both a previous case and the current case. In the latter she added the purposes of benefitting herself. At any rate defendant and one of her witnesses testified that Doss Berry, Jr., expressed his wish that she exercise her judgment in expending the funds.
After the death of her brother, defendant did pay his debts and did pay for some of their father's benefits. She advanced some money to Doss Berry, III, when he decided not to attend college as had been anticipated by the father. The relations between plaintiff and her mother on the one hand and the defendant on the other have been less than cordial. When plaintiff presented a list of expenses evidently made by her mother for attending an out-of-state school, defendant refused to advance any money saying that she owed obligations to three persons not just one person and that it was not intended that the money be used to defray all expenses of attending college. When there was no more contact between plaintiff and defendant, plaintiff in her fourth year in college filed suit asking that the arrangement be declared a trust and that all proceeds after the payment of the decedent's debts and the care of Doss Berry, Sr., be recognized as her and her brother's property. Peggy Jo Hilsmeyer Berry joined in the suit as the tutrix of Doss Berry, III. When the latter reached majority and did not want to be a plaintiff, he was joined as a defendant.
The lower court found that there was no trust but found a contract between Doss Berry, Jr. and his sister for plaintiff's benefit.
We agree that there was no trust. In the first place, it is clear that Doss Berry, Jr., did not want and did not intend to create a trust. Furthermore the requirements for an inter vivos or testamentary trust have not been met.
We disagree that a contract containing a stipulation pour autrui for plaintiff's benefit was confected between Doss Berry, Jr., and Barbara Sue Berry. To create a legal obligation enforceable by the beneficiary there must be certainty as to the benefit to accrue to the beneficiary. Miller v. Crusel, 135 La. 649, 65 So. 873 (1914). For statements of certainty required in all contracts, see Jones v. Janes, 156 La. 715, 101 So. 116 (1924); TAC Amusement Company v. Henry, 238 So.2d 398 (1970); Wright v. Mark C. Smith & Sons, La., 283 So.2d 85 (1973).
Indicative of the uncertainty of the "object" of the agreement between Doss Berry, Jr., and his sister are the following questions: what would be the amount of his debts; what would be the amount required to care for his father; would Doss Berry, III, attend college; what is meant by "education" of his children, for instance did he mean attendance at the most expensive of colleges and finishing schools or did he mean a business course at a local business college or beauty college; what was the extent of the obligation in view of his statement that the children would be drawing social security and getting help from the mother and grandparents; what is the extent of obligation to "backstop" other contributions to their education; what is defendant's obligation in view of Berry's statement that she use her good judgment.
Furthermore, we are convinced that Berry did not intend to enter a contract containing an enforceable stipulation pour au-trui. He had rejected a trust because of its inflexibility. A contract with an enforceable stipulation pour autrui would be even more inflexible. While it is likely that Berry, a licensed and practicing Louisiana attorney, knew of the statement in Fontenot v. Marquette Casualty Co., 258 La. 671, 247 So.2d 572 (1971), that a stipulation pour autrui must be in writing, we do not base our decision thereon. Instead, we believe that he did not intend that the "arrangement" be a legally enforceable contract, much less one containing a stipulation pour autrui.
For these reasons the judgment of the lower court is reversed and there is now judgment rejecting plaintiff's demands at her costs both in this court and the lower court.
REVERSED AND RENDERED.
COVINGTON, J., dissents for written reasons assigned.
LANDRY, J., dissents for written reasons by COVINGTON, J.
. Berry v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of U.S., 316 So.2d 399 (1st Cir. 1975).
. LSA-R.S. 9:1752:
"An inter vivos may be created only by authentic act or by act under private signature executed in the presence of two witnesses and duly acknowledged by the settlor or by the affidavit of one of the attesting witnesses."
.LSA-R.S. 9:1751:
"A testamentary trust may be created only in one of the forms prescribed by the laws regulating donations mortis causa."
. See Succession of Jones, 172 So.2d 312 (4th Cir. 1965) writ refused 247 La. 718, 174 So.2d 131 (1965).
. This statement has been criticized, 37 La.L.R. 346-7.