Sharon Denise Murphy Sanders, Curator for Kevin Thurston Colvin v. Joy Marie Huff Dupree consolidated with Sharon Sanders for Kevin Colvin v. Joy Dupree

Judgment rendered March 4, 2020.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,
La. C.C.P.

No. 53,296-CA
No. 53,297-CA
(Consolidated Cases)

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

No. 53,296-CA No. 53,297-CA

SHARON DENISE MURPHY SHARON SANDERS FOR
SANDERS, CURATOR FOR KEVIN COLVIN
KEVIN THURSTON COLVIN Plaintiff-Appellant
Plaintiff-Appellant
versus
versus

JOY MARIE HUFF DUPREE JOY DUPREE
Defendant-Appellee Defendant-Appellee

*****

Appealed from the
Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Webster, Louisiana
Trial Court Nos. 77280 and 77241

Honorable Michael O. Craig, Judge

*****

MELANIE F. McCULLOUGH Counsel for Appellant

ROBERT M. HANNA Counsel for Appellee

*****

Before MOORE, PITMAN, and THOMPSON, JJ.

THOMPSON, J.

This matter arises from the 26th Judicial District Court, Webster

Parish, Louisiana, the Honorable Michael Craig presiding, on the issue of

whether authority and capacity of a curator to institute and pursue a divorce

proceeding on behalf of an interdict are generally conferred by the

applicable articles on curatorship and tutorship.1

In 2014, Kevin Colvin (“Colvin”) and Joy Dupree (“Dupree”) were

married. In 2018, by way of authority purportedly granted by a power of

attorney, Sharon Sanders (“Sanders”) instituted a petition for protection

from abuse from Dupree on behalf of Colvin. Subsequently, Sanders filed

on behalf of Colvin a petition for divorce from Dupree. During this same

general time period an interdiction proceeding for Colvin was instituted,

with Colvin ultimately being interdicted and his son being appointed as

initial curator. Colvin’s son permitted and the trial court approved Sanders

to substitute as curator for Colvin. In response to the filing of the petition

for divorce, Dupree filed exceptions of no cause of action, no right of action,

and lack of procedural capacity, which were maintained by the trial court.

Sanders now appeals the trial court’s judgment. For the following reasons,

we reverse the peremptory exceptions of no right of action and no cause of

action, and we vacate and remand with instructions as to the dilatory

exception of lack of procedural capacity.

1
The question of whether an interdict can institute divorce proceedings through a
curator has previously been on appeal before this Court. See, e.g., Treadwell v.
Treadwell, 41,130 (La. App. 2 Cir. 06/28/06), 935 So. 2d 740; Cory v. Cory, 395 So. 2d
937 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1981). However, in those cases, the Court pretermitted the issue
before us today or reversed on separate grounds.

FACTS

Kevin Colvin married Joy Dupree in 2014. Colvin had apparently

been previously married and fathered children from that prior marriage. On

August 1, 2018, Sanders, under a power of attorney from Colvin, filed a

petition for protection from abuse on behalf of Colvin against Dupree. The

protective order alleged Dupree was not properly taking care of Colvin, was

harassing caregivers, and was running up credit card bills that were in

Colvin’s name only. An ex parte temporary restraining order was issued.

Soon after, on August 14, 2018, Sanders filed a petition for divorce on

behalf of Colvin against Dupree. Sanders’ ground for divorce was that

Colvin and Dupree were separated for a period of time in excess of 180

days. La. C.C. art. 102. The matters were consolidated and set for hearing.

At the September 25, 2018, hearing, the trial court ordered an attorney

be appointed to interview Colvin and requested a mental health examination

to determine whether Colvin should be interdicted. The trial court also

appointed a curator ad hoc and allowed the temporary restraining order to

expire, placing a no contact order prohibiting Dupree from contacting Colvin

or Sanders. The matter was reset for trial.

On December 18, 2018, at the pretrial hearing, the trial court opined

that it did not believe Sanders had the authority nor was she, as agent from a

purported power of attorney, the proper party to bring a divorce action on

behalf of Colvin. The trial court also noted that an interdiction proceeding

had been instituted against Colvin. On January 7, 2019, Colvin was placed

under temporary interdiction and his son, Richard Colvin, was appointed as

2

a temporary curator. The interdiction proceeding was apparently not

consolidated with the protective order and divorce actions.2

On January 8, 2019, the trial court signed a judgment allowing Dupree

to return to the matrimonial domicile, but prohibited any harassment of

Colvin, his caretakers, or family members, and further prohibited removal of

any of Colvin’s property. That same day, Dupree filed exceptions of “no

cause of action/no right of action” and lack of procedural capacity claiming

that Sanders, under a power of attorney, lacked the procedural capacity to

proceed with an action for divorce on behalf of Colvin.

On January 23, 2019, Richard Colvin filed a petition to substitute

himself, in his capacity as curator, as plaintiff in place of his father in the

divorce proceeding against Dupree. Richard Colvin also filed a Rule for Use

and Possession of Former Family Home and Separate Property, claiming

that the matrimonial domicile was the separate property of his father, Colvin,

and that Dupree and Colvin had entered into a prenuptial agreement.

Richard Colvin also sought return of the separate property of Colvin’s that

Dupree allegedly removed from the residence.

On March 22, 2019, Richard Colvin, as temporary curator, filed an

opposition to Dupree’s exceptions stating that any issue with the right of

action had been cured with his petition to substitute himself as Colvin’s

curator as plaintiff.

The trial court heard arguments on the divorce and pending exceptions

on April 2, 2019. The trial court first noted that Colvin had been interdicted,

2
The record reflects that the interdiction proceeding against Colvin was filed in
the 26th Judicial District Court, Webster Parish, under Docket No. 16,799. The record
before us is void of that proceeding.
3

thus releasing the curator ad hoc in connection with this matter. Counsel for

plaintiff then moved to have Sanders appointed as curatrix and substitute her

as plaintiff on Colvin’s behalf, which the court granted. The court then

sustained the exceptions in favor of Dupree, holding the curatrix lacked

procedural capacity to institute and pursue a divorce proceeding on behalf of

the interdict, Colvin. This appeal ensued.

DISCUSSION

The looming question in this matter is does a person, even if

interdicted, lose the right seek a divorce. If a person is interdicted, the

proper party to file any such action would be the curator in the capacity as

curator, just as a curator would to seek to enforce or protect any other rights

of an interdict. The determination of interdiction is not in and of itself a

final determination of whether the interdict retains the requisite lucidity to

express a desire to obtain a divorce. If he retains requisite capacity, even if

in lucid intervals, and expresses such a desire, his curator would necessarily

have to be the person to initiate such an action. The challenge in this matter

is that there is scant jurisprudence and little statutory direction which delves

into such legal rights. The ability of an individual interdict would be

specific to that interdict, and perhaps a contradictory hearing would be

necessary to reach the ultimate conclusion of whether the interdict has

initiated the desire to obtain a divorce of his free will.

A curator may act only within the authority granted. The Code of

Civil Procedure, and Louisiana jurisprudence, sets forth that authority. Most

relevant to the inquiry before us is La. C.C.P. art. 4566, which provides:

A. Except as otherwise provided by law, the relationship
between interdict and curator is the same as that between
minor and tutor. The rules provided by Articles 4261 through
4

4269, 4270 through 4272, 4301 through 4342, and 4371 apply
to curatorship of interdicts. Nevertheless, provisions
establishing special rules for natural tutors and parents shall not
apply in the context of interdiction.

B. A curator who owns an interest in property with the
interdictor who holds a security interest or lien that encumbers
the property of the interdict may acquire the property, or any
interest therein, from the interdict upon compliance with Article
4271, with prior court authorization, and when it would be in
the best interest of the interdict. Except for good cause shown,
the court shall appoint an independent appraiser to value the
interest to be acquired by the curator.

C. A curator may accept donations made to the interdict. A
curator shall not have donations of the property of the interdict
except as provided by law.

D. A curator may place the property of the interdict in trust in
accordance with the provisions of Article 4269.1. The trust
shall be subject to termination at the option of the interdict upon
termination of the interdiction, or if the interdict dies during the
interdiction, at the option of his heirs or legatees.

E. A curator shall inform the undercurator reasonably in
advance of any material changes in the living arrangements of
the interdict and any transactions materially affecting his person
or affairs.

F. A curator shall not establish or move the place of dwelling
of the interdict outside this state without prior court
authorization.

G. A curator may not consent to an abortion or sterilization of
the interdict without prior court authorization.

H. Neither a curator nor a court shall admit or commit an
interdict to a mental health treatment facility except in
accordance with the provisions of R.S. 28:50 through 64.

I. A curator appointed in an order of temporary interdiction
shall have no authority to admit the defendant to a residential or
long- term care facility in the absence of good cause shown at a
contradictory hearing.

J. A curator shall allow communications, visitation, and
interaction between an interdict who is over the age of eighteen
years and a relative of the interdict by blood, adoption, or
affinity within the third degree, or another individual who has a

5

relationship with the interdict based on or productive of strong
affection if it would serve the best interest of the interdict.

These rules, generally, are those that apply to tutorship and the

management of an interdict’s affairs. La. C.C.P. arts. 4566, comment (a),

4261-69, 4270-74, 4301-42, 4371. Likewise, comment (e) to La. C.C. art.

392 defines the term “affairs” as interests of the interdict that are distinct

from his person. This term includes the interdict’s estate, property, and

business, but may include other interests as well. La. C.C. art. 392,

comment (e).

In essence, Sanders’ argument to the trial court, and now to this Court,

is that if a curator acts in place of the interdict, then who besides that court-

appointed curator would be the proper party to assert the legal right of an

interdict to obtain a divorce? While such an argument may have merit if the

trial court had granted that authority after a contradictory hearing, that is not

the case before us. Rather, we are left to determine if the right to institute a

divorce proceeding is found within the general provisions of the applicable

articles dealing with curatorships and tutorships. We can find no support for

such an argument under the currently existing facts.

In her appeal, Sanders asserts two errors by the trial court:

1. The trial court erred in granting Dupree’s Dilatory
Exception of Lack of Procedural Capacity;

2. The trial court erred in granting Dupree’s Peremptory
Exception of No Cause or Right of Action.

In her first assignment of error, Sanders asserts that the trial court

erred in granting Dupree’s dilatory exception of lack of procedural capacity.

Specifically, Sanders claims that a curator is a proper plaintiff to sue to

enforce the right of an interdict and that the two should be viewed as

6

“legally inseparable.” La. C.C.P. art. 684; Converse v. Dicks, 179 La. 339,

154 So. 17 (1934). Dupree argues that the same principle that prohibits

marriage by procuration, or through power of attorney, should apply in this

situation. La. C.C. art. 92. Dupree maintains that the law governing

interdiction authority for a curator focuses on the preservation of the assets

and property of the interdict’s estate, not personal matters such as marriage.

Interdiction is a judgment by which a civil court takes away to varying

degrees a person’s right to administer his person and property. La. C.C. art.

389. Under Louisiana jurisprudence, interdiction is considered one of the

most powerful involuntary legal regimes that may be applied to a person. Its

effect has been described as a “radical displacement of legal identity: it

nullifies the interdict’s own actions, and transfers his decision-making power

to a surrogate.” Jeanne Louise Carriere, Reconstructing the Grounds of

Interdiction, 54 LA. L. REV. 1199, 1199 (1994). Similarly, according to the

Louisiana Supreme Court, “[t]here is nothing which [an interdict] is capable

of doing legally . . . . His curator is substituted for him, is the human agency

through whom the interdict acts, and the two are legally inseparable.”

Converse, supra.

The interdiction judgment entails the placing of the interdict under

tutorship of a curator. La. C.C. art. 392; La. C.C.P. 4566; 1 MARCEL

PLANIOL, TRAITÉ ÉLÉMENTAIRE DE DROIT CIVIL pt. 2, no. 2038 (George

Ripert ed., 12th ed. 1939), translated in 1 TREATISE ON THE CIVIL LAW 211

(La. State Law Inst. trans., 1959). The curator’s duty is to represent the

interdict in juridical acts and to care for the person or affairs of the interdict.

La. C.C. art. 392. A curator may exercise all procedural rights available to a

litigant, including the procedural capacity to sue to enforce a right of an
7

interdict. La. C.C.P. arts. 684, 4264. While La. C.C.P. art. 684 suggests a

broad scope of powers regarding the curator’s ability to sue on behalf of an

interdict, Sanders is mistaken on the breadth of that power.

Louisiana’s legislature provides insight in to the breadth and scope of

authority of a curator over an interdict in La. C.C.P. art. 4566, and provides

wide-ranging authority far greater than simply managing the property of the

interdict. In the instant matter, we are not simply dealing with managing

property. Rather, Sanders is attempting to initiate a legal proceeding to

terminate a legal regime which necessarily requires voluntary and intentional

action by at least one spouse. Clearly the applicable statutes empowering

curators to make life-altering decisions for interdicts are allowed, but only

after seeking and obtaining specific prior court authority after a

contradictory hearing. Curators may exercise for interdicts extraordinary

powers granted by the trial court for matters which include:

1. Moving or establishing the place of dwelling of an interdict outside
the state of Louisiana (La. C.C.P. art. 4566(F));

2. Consenting to an abortion or sterilization of the interdict (La.
C.C.P. art. 4566(G));

3. Admitting or committing an interdict to a mental health facility
except in accordance with the provisions of R.S. 28:50 through 64
(La. C.C.P. art. 4566(H)); or

4. Admitting an interdict to a residential or long-term care facility
(La. C.C.P. art. 4566(I)).

As such, in the absence of express authority pursuant to the above

articles, the issue of authority is in controversy. A determination is

necessary as to whether a curator’s authority to manage the affairs of an

interdict, as defined in La. C.C.P. art. 4566, includes seeking a divorce. In

the current matter, Sanders is requesting this Court to expand the authority

8

of a curator to encompass, without specific prior court approval, instituting a

divorce proceeding. We believe such an expansion of the limited rights and

responsibilities of the general authority extended to curators is not in

accordance with the statutory scheme or applicable jurisprudence.

We are unaware of any statutory provision or juridical declaration

which expands a curator’s role beyond representing the interdict in the

administration of his property, which is either not specifically expressed in

the statute or granted by a court after a contradictory hearing. In his treatise,

French jurist Marcel Planiol clarifies that “[t]he right of action to sue for

divorce is essentially personal to the spouses. No other person whatsoever

may act. Thus are excluded: . . . . The tutor of the judicially interdicted

persons.” 1 PLANIOL, supra, pt. 1, no. 1180, p. 658-59. While not binding

on this Court, Planiol offers Louisiana courts guidance on the intricacies of

the Napoleonic Code. Therefore, absent direction from the Louisiana

Supreme Court or the legislature to the contrary, we find that a curator

cannot sue for divorce on behalf of an interdicted person under the general

provisions of authority granted to curators.

The trial court appears to have sufficient grounds to sustain the

dilatory exception of lack of procedural capacity under the limited facts

presented. When a dilatory exception is granted, La. C.C.P. art. 933(B)

authorizes the plaintiff to remove the grounds for the objection by

amendment or action, within the delay allowed by the court. As the

judgment sustaining the dilatory exception did not include the requisite

language providing a time period during which plaintiff could take whatever

action it deemed appropriate to remove the exception, the judgment is

vacated and remanded to the trial court to include such a time period.
9

In her second assignment of error, Sanders asserts that the trial court

erred in granting the peremptory exceptions of no cause of action and no

right of action. The exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action

both present questions of law. Stonecipher v. Caddo Parish, 51,148 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 04/07/17), 219 So. 3d 1187. Although these two exceptions are

often confused or improperly combined, the exceptions are separate and

distinct. La. C.C.P. art. 927(5), (6); Industrial Companies Inc. v. Durbin,

02-0665 (La. 01/28/03), 837 So. 2d 1207. The primary difference between

the exception of no right of action and no cause of action lies in the fact that

the focus in an exception of no right of action is on whether the particular

plaintiff has a right to bring the suit, while the focus in an exception of no

cause of action is on whether the law provides a remedy against the

particular defendant. Badeaux v. Southwest Computer Bureau, Inc., 05-0612

(La. 03/17/06), 929 So. 2d 121; Stonecipher, supra.

The function of an exception of no right of action is a determination

of whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law

grants the cause of action asserted in the petition. Badeaux, supra;

Stonecipher, supra. In the present matter, Colvin would certainly have the

exclusive right to seek to terminate a legal regime of which he is a member.

That right exists in favor of him personally. In contrast, the exception of no

cause of action tests the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining

whether the law affords a remedy to anyone based on the facts alleged in the

pleading. Villareal v. 6494 Home, LLC, 48,302 (La. App. 2 Cir. 08/07/13),

121 So. 3d 1246; Rangel v. Denny, 47,381 (La. App. 2 Cir. 08/08/12), 104

So.3d 68. Here, Colvin would have a cause of action to seek a divorce. He

10

is required to pursue legal remedies through a curator but such a remedy is

available to him.

Colvin has both the right and the cause to seek to end his marriage,

even if procedurally legal actions must be accomplished by an interdict’s

curator. As such, the granting by the trial court of the exception of no right

of action and the exception of no cause of action is hereby reversed.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the trial court’s judgment on the

dilatory exception of lack of procedural capacity is vacated and remanded

with instructions, and the order granting the peremptory exceptions of no

cause of action and the order granting the peremptory exception of no right

of action are reversed. Costs of this appeal are assessed equally to Sanders

and Colvin.

11