Trial Court Judgment Vacated for Unadmitted Accounting Evidence

Trust Law Controversies

Trial Court Judgment Vacated for Reliance on Unadmitted Accounting Evidence and Orders Against Non-Party Succession

Prepared March 15, 2026

Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit

Date: February 19, 2026

Citation: In re LaJaunie Family Irrevocable Trust, No. 2025-508, 2026 WL 468490 (La. App. 3 Cir. Feb. 19, 2026)

Summary of Relevant Facts

Chester and Kim LaJaunie created an irrevocable trust in 2017 naming their children Christopher and Angie as co-trustees and principal beneficiaries. They transferred their Breaux Bridge home to the trust, reserving a lifetime usufruct. Chester died in November 2019, and two life insurance policies totaling $287,940.62 naming the trust as beneficiary were paid out. Christopher, as co-trustee, deposited the proceeds into the trust account but then transferred $286,672.90 to Kim’s personal account, claiming the funds were needed for her around-the-clock Alzheimer’s care. Kim died in May 2024.

Procedural Background

In November 2025, Angie filed suit on behalf of the trust to compel Christopher to return the life insurance proceeds and to remove him as co-trustee. Christopher responded with a motion for reimbursement, trust termination, and asset distribution. After day one of hearings, the trial court ordered each party to provide a full accounting. When the parties returned nearly two weeks later, the trial court took no evidence. Instead, the court advised it had already decided the matter based on memoranda and previously submitted materials, declined further argument, and rendered judgment. The judgment credited Christopher’s accounting, ordered transfers from Kim’s succession (which was not a party), awarded reimbursements, and terminated the trust. Angie appealed.

Main Controversies

The main controversies were: (1) whether Christopher breached his fiduciary duty by transferring trust assets to Kim’s personal account; (2) whether the trial court could properly rely on accounting documents that were referenced in testimony but never formally offered or admitted into evidence; and (3) whether the trial court had jurisdiction to order transfers from Kim’s succession when the succession was not a party to the trust proceeding.

Position of the Parties

Angie argued that Christopher committed a serious breach of fiduciary duty by diverting nearly all of the insurance proceeds, that the trial court’s reliance on unadmitted accountings was reversible error, and that the court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering transfers from a non-party succession. Christopher maintained the transfers were necessary for their mother’s Alzheimer’s care and that his accounting was credible.

Holding or Decision

The Court of Appeal vacated the trial court’s judgment in its entirety and remanded for further proceedings. It held that the trial court committed legal error by relying on accountings never admitted into evidence, and exceeded its authority by ordering transfers involving a succession that was not a party to the proceeding.

Reasons for the Decision

The court applied the principle that evidence not properly and officially offered and introduced cannot be considered, even if it is physically placed in the record. Documents attached to memoranda do not constitute evidence and cannot be considered as such on appeal. Because the trial court’s findings depended on these unadmitted accountings, the appellate court could not review the substantive merits. On the jurisdictional issue, the court held that a judgment cannot be rendered against a party until that party has been joined in the suit and served with process. Kim’s succession was not a party, making the trial court’s order against it absolutely null. The attorney’s fees issue was not properly preserved because Angie had not requested fees at the trial court level.