In re Noel
| Decision Date | 02 May 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 12–6.,12–6. |
| Citation | 94 So.3d 104 |
| Parties | INTERDICTION OF Theodule Pierre NOEL, Sr. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
R. Chadwick Edwards, Jr., Edwards & Bellaire, L.L.C., Abbeville, LA, for Appellee, Theodule Pierre Noel, Sr.
Thomas J. Gayle, Gayle Law Firm, LLC, Lake Charles, LA, for Appellants, Theodule P. Noel, Jr., Christine Noel Devenport, Catherine A. Noel.
Court composed of OSWALD A. DECUIR, JIMMIE C. PETERS, and J. DAVID PAINTER, Judges.
[3 Cir. 1]Siblings Theodule P. Noel, Jr., Christine Noel Devenport, and Catherine A. Noel filed a petition seeking the full interdiction of their father, 83–year–old Theodule P. Noel, Sr. (Mr. Noel). Summary judgment was rendered in favor of Mr. Noel, and his children have appealed the dismissal of their claim. Mr. Noel answered the appeal, seeking attorney fees and sanctions. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Mr. Noel and his wife, Joyce, had four children: the three petitioners and another son, Samuel Noel. The petitioners originally sought the interdiction of their mother, as well as their father, but their mother died during the pendency of these proceedings. According to the facts alleged in the record, Mr. Noel had open heart surgery several years ago, and, during the course of a difficult recovery, he suffered a stroke in 2002. After extensive therapy and hospitalizations, he recovered and was once again able to conduct his farming operations, drive a car, socialize with friends, and the like. Mrs. Noel then suffered a stroke in 2005. She did not recover as well and required full-time assistance until her death in 2012.
At the time of their mother's stroke, all four Noel children were involved in their parents' lives. Three live in Abbeville near their parents and one lives in Houston. In 2005, all four of the children were designated as agents, to make unanimous decisions, in a medical power of attorney granted by Mr. Noel. There is no indication of family tension preceding the decline of Mrs. Noel's health in 2005. From that time forward, however, the petitioners allege that Mr. Noel began to act differently towards them. Mr. Noel began to rely on Samuel to the exclusion of the other siblings. He showed some personality changes. He granted an exclusive general power of attorney to Samuel. He decided to [3 Cir. 2]sell some of his properties to a friend and to Samuel. He acquiesced in Mrs. Noel's sale of her separate property to Samuel and his wife. The essence of the petitioners' claim is stated in the following sentence from the petition: “If the savings and resources of [Mr. Noel] have been diminished so that the sale of property is necessary, it has to be the result of mismanagement and incapacity, psychological manipulation and financial exploitation.”
Mr. Noel answered the petition and moved for summary judgment. In support thereof, he filed eight affidavits from friends and physicians, all of whom attested to his mental capacity and lack of dementia. Mr. Noel asserts that he simply changed his mind in recent years as to how he wanted to dispose of his property, and three of his children disagree with those decisions. He also has become “disappointed, frustrated, and angry” with those three children. Mr. Noel contends summary judgment is appropriate at this early stage in the proceedings because the petitioners will not be able to meet their four-fold burden of proof for a successful interdiction proceeding: infirmity, inability to care for one's person, inability to care for one's property, and necessity. La.Civ.Code art. 389. He seeks attorney fees under La.Code Civ.P. art. 4550, which may be awarded “as the court may consider fair.”
The petitioners asked for a continuance of the summary judgment hearing in order to conduct discovery. The motion was denied.
The petitioners' cause of action is based on the following Civil Code provision:
Art. 389. Full interdiction
A court may order the full interdiction of a natural person of the age of majority,or an emancipated minor, who due to an infirmity, is unable consistently to make reasoned decisions regarding the care of his person and property, or to communicate [3 Cir. 3]those decisions, and whose interests cannot be protected by less restrictive means.
Article 4548 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure states that “[t]he petitioner in an interdiction proceeding bears the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.” In the procedurally similar case of In re Clement, 45,454 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/11/10), 46 So.3d 804, 808–809, the second circuit reiterated Louisiana's well-established summary judgment rules and reached the conclusion that the interdiction sought was not factually supported; therefore, the petitioner would not be able to meet her “clear and convincing” burden of proof at trial, and summary judgment was appropriate:
Appellate review of the granting of a motion for summary judgment is de novo, using the identical criteria that govern the trial court's consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate. King v. Illinois National Insurance Company, 2008–1491 (La.4/3/09), 9 So.3d 780. A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used when there is no genuine issue of material fact. King v. Illinois National Insurance Company, supra. The summary judgment procedure is designed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action allowed by law. La. C.C.P. art. 966(A)(2). A motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with any affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966(B).
On the motion for summary judgment, the burden of proof is on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial