Elmer Riehle v. Carolyn Riehle
2016 Ky. LEXIS 561
| Ky. | 2016Background
- Elmer Riehle (≈88) and Carolyn Riehle (≈72) married over 30 years; Elmer was adjudicated incompetent by jury trials in 2008 and 2010 and Carolyn was appointed his guardian and conservator.
- Elmer, frustrated with Carolyn’s control over his assets and her opposition, filed for divorce in his own name while still under the guardianship.
- The trial court dismissed Elmer’s petition, relying on Johnson v. Johnson (1943), which has been read to preclude divorce actions by or on behalf of adjudicated incompetents; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Elmer appealed to the Kentucky Supreme Court seeking reversal of the dismissal and overruling of Johnson.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal but rested its decision on procedural grounds: Civil Rule (CR) 17.03(1) requires actions by persons of unsound mind to be brought by their guardian; Elmer brought the suit in his own name.
- The Court noted standing was not the problem (Elmer has an interest), but CR 17.03(1) bars him from suing in his own name; the Court left any policy change to the legislature or rulemakers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can an adjudicated incompetent file for divorce in his own name? | Riehle argued he should be permitted to sue for divorce despite adjudication. | Carolyn (and courts below) argued an incompetent may not bring suit; Johnson precludes it. | No — CR 17.03(1) requires the guardian to bring actions for persons of unsound mind; Riehle cannot sue in his own name. |
| Is standing the bar to suit? | Riehle asserted he has standing because he has a substantial interest in divorce. | Carolyn contended procedural rules bar the suit regardless of interest. | Standing exists, but CR 17.03(1) procedurally bars the incompetent from suing personally. |
| Does Johnson v. Johnson control or require overruling? | Riehle sought to overrule Johnson. | Carolyn and lower courts relied on Johnson to dismiss the suit. | The Court affirmed the result but did not rely on or overrule Johnson; disposition rests on CR 17.03(1) procedural defect. |
| Should a guardian ever be permitted to file for divorce on behalf of a ward? | (Raised in concurrence) A limited guardian could be appointed to pursue divorce where guardian’s interests conflict with ward’s. | (Majority) Such rule/policy changes belong to legislature or rulemakers. | Majority declined to change law; concurrence urged overruling Johnson and permitting limited guardian to file. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Johnson, 294 Ky. 77, 170 S.W.2d 889 (Ky. 1943) (historical rule limiting divorce actions involving incompetents)
- Fox v. Grayson, 317 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2010) (standard for de novo review of dismissal for failure to state a claim)
- Straney v. Straney, 481 S.W.2d 292 (Ky. 1972) (defining “unsound mind” as an adjudication)
- Harrison v. Leach, 323 S.W.3d 702 (Ky. 2010) (standing requires a judicially recognizable interest)
- Rose v. Council for Better Education, Inc., 790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1989) (explaining when a party will be aggrieved by an adverse ruling)
- DeGrella By & Through Parrent v. Elston, 858 S.W.2d 698 (Ky. 1993) (statutes on guardianship are remedial and broadly construed)
- Strunk v. Strunk, 445 S.W.2d 145 (Ky. 1969) (doctrine of substituted judgment covering welfare matters for incompetents)