84 So. 3d 601
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Henry Helm was interdicted; his interdiction is undisputed.
- Helm’s court-appointed attorney represented him on petition for interdiction.
- Helm sought to have his wife Althea appointed curatrix, despite his prior designation of Barbara Manteris as procuratrix.
- Trial court found Helm could not make a reasoned decision at procuration time, supporting his wife’s curatrix appointment.
- Helm’s procuration of Manteris was not introduced into evidence, precluding consideration of her nomination.
- The court found a substantial conflict of interest between Donna Oufnac as undercuratrix and her status as surety to the curatrix, and remanded on related issues regarding the Oufnacs’ community property regime.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Manteris is entitled to preference as curatrix | Helm designated Manteris as procuratrix, implying nomination | Procurement not in evidence; preference governed by statute | Althea Helm has preference as curatrix; Manteris not proven due to lack of procuration evidence |
| Effect of procuration not in evidence on nomination | procuration demonstrates intent to nominate Manteris | Evidence not in record; cannot be considered | Record lacking the procuration act; cannot rely on it for nomination |
| Conflict of interest with undercuratrix Donna Oufnac as surety | Undercuratrix must act in interdict’s best interest | Oufnac’s duties as surety conflict with undercurator role | Reverse the undercurator appointment of Donna Oufnac and remove due to irremediable conflict |
| Remand regarding community property and undercurator duties | Need clarifications on property regime affecting liability | Court should determine regime and adjust appointment accordingly | Remand to determine if a community property regime exists; if so, remove Mr. Oufnac and appoint substitute undercurator |
| Overall disposition of curatrix/undercurators and costs | Interdiction order should reflect proper nominations and avoid conflicts | Trial court’s findings preserved where appropriate | Affirm curatrix appointment; reverse Donna Oufnac as undercuratrix; remand for further proceedings with costs to interdict’s estate |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (standard for reviewing capacity determinations is manifest error/clearly wrong)
- In re Smith, 646 So.2d 1052 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1994) (great discretion to appoint curator; law questions reviewed de novo for issues of law)
- Interdiction of Thomas, 535 So.2d 1315 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1988) (jurisprudence on discretionary appointment by trial court)
- Interdiction of Hines, 458 So.2d 555 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1984) (court discretion in appointment of curator)
- Interdiction of Polmer, 141 So.2d 696 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1961) (undercurator duties and watchdog role)
- Green v. City of Shreveport, 888 So.2d 314 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2004) (undercurator/watchdog concept in guardianship context)
- Redmond v. Davis, 351 So.2d 1256 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1977) (tutor-tes interdict relationship analogous to minor-tutor relationship)
- McCrady v. Sebastian, 90 So. 760 (La. 1922) (historical undercuratorship principles)