Background
Michael Paul McClendon petitioned to probate the olographic will of his mother, Martha Susan Pack. In March 2025, the district court declined to sign a proposed probate order because of a perceived defect in the will’s date, and later denied McClendon’s request for reconsideration after he submitted a supplemental page. Taylor Wiegand later sought appointment as administrator of an intestate estate, while McClendon filed his own petition for appointment.
After a hearing, the district court appointed McClendon administrator. McClendon then filed a second motion to reconsider the earlier probate rulings, relying on an amendment to Louisiana Civil Code article 1575. The court granted reconsideration, rescinded its two prior orders, and directed the parties to pursue further remedies. Taylor and Carlie Wiegand appealed after the court, ex parte, designated that ruling final and appealable.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings. The February 9, 2026 order was interlocutory because it did not admit or reject the will, distribute estate assets, or appoint or remove a succession representative; it merely allowed litigation over the will’s validity to proceed.
The trial court’s finality designation could not make the order appealable. Under the version of Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1915 effective August 1, 2025, an interlocutory judgment may no longer be designated final and appealable, and this order did not fit any category of partial final judgment listed in article 1915(A). The court declined to convert the unauthorized appeal into a supervisory-writ application because no substantive hearing on the will’s validity had occurred and conversion would not promote judicial economy.
Key Takeaways
- An order reopening prior probate rulings and permitting further litigation is interlocutory when it does not decide the will’s validity or otherwise resolve succession rights.
- Louisiana’s amended Article 1915(B) does not permit a trial court to designate an otherwise interlocutory order as immediately appealable.
- On remand, the parties may treat McClendon’s motions to reconsider as motions for new trial; amended Civil Code article 1575 applies to claims pending on appeal or review.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that litigants cannot obtain an immediate appeal simply through a trial court’s finality designation when the challenged order remains preliminary under Article 1915. Succession disputes over an olographic will’s validity ordinarily must be litigated to an appealable judgment before appellate review.
The court also signaled that the amended version of Civil Code article 1575 governs pending claims, consistent with Succession of Brocato, notwithstanding contrary implications in the Second Circuit’s earlier Successions of Neal decision.