
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Wisner heirs ask Louisiana Supreme Court to reconsider ruling
Posted on 10/21/26 at 10:13 am
Posted on 10/21/26 at 10:13 am
quote:
The heirs of the late philanthropist Edward Wisner asked the Louisiana Supreme Court on Thursday to reconsider its ruling earlier this month that effectively hands over millions of dollars in annual proceeds from lucrative a oilfield to the City of New Orleans.
In a court filing late Tuesday afternoon, the Wisner heirs asked the court to reconsider its 5-2 ruling to not review a lower court's ruling against the heirs, writing that the "extraordinary circumstances" necessitate reconsidering that decision.
The heirs said there was a "broad divergence of opinion among the justices" in their initial review of the writ and that only Justice Michael Guidry offered an opinion on the merits. They also warn that "protracted federal litigation" would follow if the court declines to review lower courts' rulings, which they argue would deny their right to due process and equal protection.
The Louisiana Supreme Court's Oct. 6 decision paved the way for the city to potentially receive $3 million per year from oilfield land in Port Fourchon, which comes as the city struggles to fill a $77 million budget deficit.
After the Oct. 6 ruling, the Chief Administrative Officer Joe Giarrusso said the city wouldn't log the additional revenue in the books until the Wisner heirs exhausted their legal options, as the city expected them to ask for a rehearing.
LINK
I have been following this saga for years now. And it's a nice non-partisan topic for us all to chat about without bickering.
A very quick rundown of this whole Wisner Trust debacle (to the best of my understanding):
The Wisner Trust was established in the 1910s by Edward Wisner to benefit the City of New Orleans, Charity Hospital (now LSU), Tulane, the Salvation Army, and “the Wisner Ladies” (his widow and daughters) using revenues from valuable land he donated. The trust was set to expire after 100 years.
The Wisner Trust officially expired on August 4, 2014, marking the completion of its original 100-year term . When that happened, Edward Wisner’s will explicitly decreed that all the trust’s property and rights would revert fully to the City of New Orleans as the sole owner.
In 2020, Mayor Cantrell secretly signed a “2020 Ratification, Extension, Modification & Amendment Agreement” with the other beneficiaries (Tulane, LSU, Salvation Army, and Wisner heirs). This Permanently extended the Wisner Trust beyond its original August 4, 2014, expiration, Transformed all income beneficiaries into principal beneficiaries, effectively blocking the City of New Orleans from receiving full ownership of the trust land and revenues upon its expiration, and Shifted governance from a public advisory committee to a private board, removing transparency and accountability.
The City Council sued when this secret agreement was discovered. Orleans Parish Civil District Court invalidated the 2020 extension in May 2025, declaring it null and void and reaffirming the 2014 termination, returned full ownership and benefits of the trust to the City of New Orleans.
The heirs are begging the court to maintain their share in the expired trust. I would love to know who they are.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 10:24 am to 4cubbies
I bet the original Wisner would revoke all of that if he saw what the city has become
Posted on 10/21/26 at 10:24 am to 4cubbies
Did the mayor have authority to sign that agreement in 2020?
Seems pretty open and shut based on that.
Seems pretty open and shut based on that.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 10:27 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Seems pretty open and shut based on that.
Yes it do!!
Posted on 10/21/26 at 10:29 am to Turbeauxdog
I'd argue that an extension of the trust after its date of termination makes the 2020 agreement absolutely null.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 10:35 am to MintBerry Crunch
Sounds to me like everything should belong to the city of New Orleans. Legal system is a joke. Will said X, you can't change the that. It says what it says. Sounds to me like the 5-2 decision should have been 7-0!
Open to having my mind changed if I am missing something.
Open to having my mind changed if I am missing something.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 10:37 am to 4cubbies
Does the original trust specifically say minerals?
Posted on 10/21/26 at 10:43 am to 4cubbies
quote:
The heirs are begging the court to maintain their share in the expired trust. I would love to know who they are.
You sure are ate up with worrying about other peoples shite
Posted on 10/21/26 at 10:46 am to 4cubbies
Seems to me Mr Wisner ( or “Wisiner” as my son would say when he was 3 and would drive that bridge) had his reasons for setting this up the way he did and those reasons whether we know, agree with or understand the logic should be respected.
If the heirs want to maintain a beneficiary relationship with the asset they should make an offer to buy it from the city, or shut up.
If the heirs want to maintain a beneficiary relationship with the asset they should make an offer to buy it from the city, or shut up.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 10:48 am to 4cubbies
Trust fund babies who don't want to lose that sweet cash.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 11:00 am to omegaman66
quote:
Sounds to me like everything should belong to the city of New Orleans.
There’s no way to know that without examining the instruments and the mineral history.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 11:03 am to loogaroo
In Louisiana the minerals belong to the property owner after 7 or 10 years, I forget which even if the property owner did not purchase the mineral rights.
quote:
There’s no way to know that without examining the instruments and the mineral history.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 11:05 am to omegaman66
Minerals prescribe to the surface owner 10 years after the last date of production.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 11:30 am to omegaman66
Was there any language in the trust granting the trustee with specific legal powers to modify administrative or tax-related terms of an irrevocable trust as circumstances change? In Louisiana's laws I am uncertain that could extend to changing beneficiaries (the agreement didn't do that. Only extended the date it expires.) but also, would changing the date be a legal administrative change? Possibly.
It looks like New Orleans will eventually get it, but it the trustee can simply change the dates because of 'circumstances have changed" then they can always change the date as often as they desired to prevent that from happening.
It looks like New Orleans will eventually get it, but it the trustee can simply change the dates because of 'circumstances have changed" then they can always change the date as often as they desired to prevent that from happening.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 11:45 am to Timeoday
quote:What did it say and what did it mean? I would start there.
Seems pretty open and shut based on that.
Yes it do!!
Posted on 10/21/26 at 12:11 pm to loogaroo
quote:
prescribe to the surface owner 10 years after the last date of production.
It should be 10 months. It is criminal what our own legal system allows the oil companies to do to landowners.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 12:12 pm to HubbaBubba
quote:
Was there any language in the trust granting the trustee with specific legal powers to modify administrative or tax-related terms of an irrevocable trust as circumstances change? In Louisiana's laws I am uncertain that could extend to changing beneficiaries (the agreement didn't do that. Only extended the date it expires.) but also, would changing the date be a legal administrative change? Possibly.
I don't know that the actual trust or language from it has ever been made public. That would obviously satisfy our curiosity.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 12:14 pm to 4cubbies
The will is very clear it says All including All rights.
New Orleans will just squander it but that was his wish and his to do with as he wishes.
The friggin heirs have made probably 100s millions off that land thanks to the old man and now want to screw him on his wishes. Nice, real nice.
New Orleans will just squander it but that was his wish and his to do with as he wishes.
The friggin heirs have made probably 100s millions off that land thanks to the old man and now want to screw him on his wishes. Nice, real nice.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 12:29 pm to 4cubbies
There are details that have been left out. Sometime in the 1920's the Wisner Ladies filed suit against the trust trying to dissolve the trust . In 1929 the suit was settled recognizing the Wisner ladies as 40% beneficiary's of the trust which included income from the trust. The issue before the court today is whether the heirs of the Wisner ladies own the the property in the trust or whether they were merely income beneficiaries. The lower courts used Wisners intentions in the original trust to interpret the compromise that happened after he died. Justice Guidry who dissented from the denial believes that compromise modified the trust to provide for the ownership by the heirs to the property in the trust/

Popular
Back to top
8














