Opinion ID: 1674504
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: other issues raised by the parties

Text: Plaintiff contends the courts below erred in not ordering collation of $15,000 which Mary Gates testified she received for agreeing to permit her mother to have the usufruct over the entire estate of her late husband. The record reflects that this amount was not paid to Mary Gates in cash but rather was given to her in co-owner bonds. As it appeared that this amount was included in the listing of bonds given to Mary Gates by decedent, it was unnecessary for the courts below to consider this item separately. Even assuming the $15,000 in bonds was not included in the listing, this amount is still not subject to collation as we have previously held that the co-owner bonds in this case are not subject to collation. The 1966 United States Gift Tax Return of decedent reflects that she gave Mary Gates two savings and loan certificates valued at $10,000 each and bonds valued at $4,500. Plaintiff maintains the courts below were correct in ordering collation of the certificates but in error by failing to order collation of the bonds. Both Mary and Stanley Gates testified that the bonds were co-owner bonds listed in the name of decedent and Mary Gates and that decedent later reclaimed and cashed the bonds. Apparently, the trial judge believed this testimony and accordingly did not order collation of the bonds. We are unable to say that this finding was clearly wrong. Plaintiff contends the courts below erred in not ordering collation of a series of checks totaling $37,000 given by decedent to Stanley Gates and Gates, Inc., a corporation solely owned by him. La.Civ.Code art. 1235 provides that an obligation of collation is confined to [lawful] children and descendants succeeding to their fathers and mothers or other ascendant.... Stanley Gates is the son-in-law of decedent and thus is not her descendant and has no obligation to collate. Succession of Nelson v. Wiegand, 224 La. 731, 70 So.2d 665 (1953); Succession of Browne, 176 So.2d 217 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1965). Similarly, Gates, Inc., a corporation solely owned by Stanley Gates, has no obligation to collate. Included in the checks discussed above were two checks issued to Gates, Inc. in November of 1956, each in the amount of $10,000. When these checks were received, the books of Gates, Inc. recorded the amounts as debt. In the courts below, plaintiff sought recovery of this $20,000 debt. The trial judge did not address the issue as he did not consider it properly before him; however, he noted that the debt seemed to have long prescribed. The court of appeal ruled that the claim to recover the $20,000 debt was properly before the court but, finding no interruption by the debtor's acknowledgement, concluded that the debt had prescribed. La.Civ. Code arts. 3520, 3538. We agree. Plaintiff now argues that this amount was not debt but really a gift. Assuming this to be true, plaintiff is still not entitled to recover as we have previously held that gifts to Gates, Inc. are not subject to collation. Plaintiff contends the courts below erred in failing to increase the award for attorney's fees. The trial judge stated that the attorneys for the succession had already been awarded $9,973.07 for handling the succession and refused to allow any additional attorney's fees. He reasoned that much of the time expended by the attorneys was for the individual benefit of their client, Alma Fey, rather than for the usual duties involved in handling a succession. The court of appeal concurred, finding that an award of additional attorney's fees was unwarranted. We agree. Plaintiff argues that the court of appeal erred in ordering her to collate the value of her bonds ($25,000) because Mary Gates did not ask in any pleading that plaintiff collate anything. First, in the trial court's judgment, it stated that the motion of Stanley and Mary Gates that their answer filed January 5, 1977 be amended to include a claim for collation of sums given by decedent to Alma Fey is granted. In any event, the contention is moot, as we are reversing that part of the judgment of the court of appeal ordering collation of the co-owner bonds held by Mary Gates and plaintiff. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court's award of interest from date of judicial demand on sums required to be collated by each party. Plaintiff contends that the courts below erred by not allowing interest from the date of donation. This contention is without merit. Since no collation is due for revenues of property, the full ownership of which had been donated, the court of appeal correctly affirmed the trial court's award of interest only from the date of judicial demand. Clark v. Hedden, 109 La. 147, 33 So.2d 116 (1902). Defendants contend that plaintiff is not entitled to any award of interest because plaintiff made no judicial demand for interest in her alternative prayer for collation. The court of appeal correctly ruled that plaintiff's specific request for interest from date of decedent's death until paid even though demanded only in her first prayer that she be declared owner of one-half of the bonds was sufficient when coupled with her final prayer for full, general, and equitable relief. In her petition, plaintiff stated that she should have an undivided one-half interest in Cemetery grave lots, in Sacred Heart Church, in or near Oakdale, Louisiana, held by defendants. Plaintiff then specifically listed the lots: Sec. 25, Lots, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 to Osterland Family Sec. 27, Lots, 1, 2, 3, 4 to A. J. Osterland Sec. 29, Lots 1, 2 Osterland Family Sec. 31, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 to Stanley Gates In their answer, the Gates stated that: Insofar as cemetery grave lots in Sacred Heart Church, in or near Oakdale, Louisiana, Defendants have no objection to Petitioner owning an undivided one-half (½) interest. Plaintiff correctly contends this interest in the above described lots should be part of the trial court's judgment. Hence, on remand the trial judge should render judgment accordingly.