dissenting.

Because the proof of claim furnished the executors was timely and further provided all required information with respect to the claim, it substantially complied with the requirements of section 3721. Substantial compliance is sufficient. Olinkraft, Inc. v. Gerard, 364 So.2d 639 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1978). Thus the proof of claim was legally sufficient to preserve plaintiff’s right to introduce parole evidence in support of her claim. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.

On Appeal from the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court, Parish of Washington; James R. Strain, Jr., Judge.

For opinion see: La.App., 518 So.2d 1085.