Succession of Manheim - 98-2051 ( La. App. 4 Cir 04/21/99), 734 So. 2d 119

Rule:

La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2837 defines a partnership in commendam as consisting of one or more general partners and one or more partners in commendam. Further, La. Civ. Code art. 2826 provides in part that a partnership in commendam, however, terminates by the death of the sole or any general partner unless the partnership is continued with the consent of the remaining general partners under a right to do so stated in the contract of partnership or if, within 90 days after such event death, all the remaining partners agree in writing to continue the partnership and to the appointment of one or more general partners if necessary or desired.

Facts:

One beneficiary of decedent's estate raised objections to several provisions of decedent's will and to decedent's legal representative's administration of the succession. Decedent's legal representative filed a fourth tableau of distribution in which he sought to pay the fees billed by a third-party law firm for representing him in his capacity as executor of decedent's estate. Beneficiary opposed the homologation of the tableau. In another suit, beneficiary filed a petition for liquidation of decedent's partnership. The lower court entered judgments dismissing beneficiary's petition for liquidation as premature and homologating the fourth tableau of distribution. The appeals followed.

Issue:

1. Did the lower court err in homologating the fourth tableau of distribution? 
2. Did the lower court err in dismissing beneficiary's petition for liquidation as premature?

Answer:

1) No. 2) Yes.

Conclusion:

After reviewing the entire record, the court concluded that the lower court was not manifestly erroneous in homologating the tableau of distribution and awarding third party law firm fees and costs. Regarding beneficiary's petition for liquidation, the court rejected decedent's legal representative's argument that he was substitute general partner. Decedent's partnership terminated upon decedent's death. Thus, beneficiary's petition for liquidation was not premature.