In Re: Interdiction of Lessie Eugene Jones

Judgment rendered September 27, 2023.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,
La. C.C.P.

No. 55,235-CA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

IN RE: INTERDICTION OF
LESSIE EUGENE JONES

*****

Appealed from the
Fourth Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Ouachita, Louisiana
Trial Court No. P-20220122

Honorable Daniel J. Ellender, Judge

*****

ROUNTREE LAW OFFICES Counsel for Appellant
By: James A. Rountree Lessie Eugene Jones

HUDSON, POTTS & BERSTEIN, LLP Counsel for Appellee
By: Margaret H. Pruitt Marilyn Sue Skirvin
Jason R. Smith

*****

Before PITMAN, THOMPSON, and MARCOTTE, JJ.

THOMPSON, J.

The out-of-state niece of an 87-year-old retired college professor filed

a petition to interdict him, seeking to be appointed as curator. She and her

children had historically been the residual legatee in an earlier version of her

uncle’s estate in his last will and testament, and she had been named as his

agent in a previous power of attorney. However, her uncle had made some

changes to his estate planning that lessened the value of the bequests to her

and her children, and he eventually revoked her power of attorney for one in

favor of his long-term companion. Using her power of attorney, the niece

obtained $5,000 of her uncle’s money, which she then utilized to retain an

attorney to seek to interdict him.

Her petition for interdiction, and the associated requests for

restraining orders and injunctions, alleged that her uncle was not capable of

making reasoned decisions due to his medical diagnosis of mild to moderate

dementia and that he was subject to the influence of his long-term

companion, who resided in the home with him. Allegations of financial

impropriety and lack of appropriate care by his companion were repeatedly

asserted by the niece, and she conveyed similar allegations to her uncle’s

treating physician and financial institutions where he banked. The trial court

appointed a geriatric psychiatrist as medical examiner and, after a hearing,

ordered the full interdiction of the uncle, appointing the niece as curator of

his property and the companion as curator of his person. There was

absolutely no evidence presented by the niece to support her repeated claims

of financial impropriety or lack of appropriate care for her uncle by his

companion. The uncle now appeals, assigning as error that his niece did not

satisfy her burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that full

interdiction was warranted; that the power of attorney in place in favor of his

companion prior to the interdiction proceedings was a valid act and therefore

less restrictive means to his full interdiction existed; and that if he were

interdicted, then his companion should be appointed as his curator rather

than his out-of-state and now somewhat alienated niece. We find no error in

the trial court’s order of a full interdiction under the very unique and

complex adversarial circumstances that exist in this matter. However, we do

find error in naming the niece as curatrix of her uncle’s property, and amend

the judgment to name the companion as the curator of the person and

property of the uncle, with the niece named as his undercurator.

FACTS

Lessie Eugene Jones (hereinafter, “Dr. Jones”), age 87, is a retired

professor from the University of Louisiana in Monroe, where he taught in

the College of Business Administration for 30 years. In addition to earning

his Ph.D. and serving as a college professor for over three decades, Dr. Jones

was also in the restaurant business. He owned and operated several local

restaurants in the Monroe area until he eventually sold them. Dr. Jones, who

continues to reside in Monroe, Louisiana, never married and did not have

any biological children or adopt anyone. He is appealing the judgment of

the trial court which ordered his full interdiction and named different

curators over his person and his finances, contrary to his wishes.

Marilyn Skirvin (hereinafter, “Skirvin”) is Dr. Jones’s niece, who

resides on a family farm in Indiana and filed the petition to interdict Dr.

Jones. Skirvin is a longtime resident of Indiana, from where Dr. Jones also

2

originally hails. Skirvin worked for 21 years as the Vice President of

Economic Development for the Bloomington Economic Development

Corporation and has two adult children and multiple grandchildren. Skirvin

asserts she enjoyed a very close and loving relationship with Dr. Jones her

entire life, until recently, including annual visits to Monroe. Dr. Jones also

visited her in Indiana over the years. The judgment of the trial court named

Skirvin as undercurator of Dr. Jones’s person and as curator of his finances.

She is not appealing the ruling of the trial court.

Gary Lloyd Anderson (hereinafter, “Anderson”) is identified in the

record as Dr. Jones’s companion and caregiver and that he and Dr. Jones

have lived together at 102 K Street in Monroe, Louisiana, for 20 years.

Anderson is named by the trial court as the undercurator for Dr. Jones’s

finances and curator of his person.

A chronology of pertinent events preceding the initiation of these

interdiction proceedings is helpful for a better understanding of the

unenviable position in which Dr. Jones now finds himself and the very

unique, contentious, and litigious environment in which he may very well

spend the remainder of his life. On November 26, 2003, Dr. Jones executed

a power of attorney in favor of his niece, Skirvin. The power of attorney

was prepared by attorney Richard Campbell. On February 19, 2010, Dr.

Jones signed a last will and testament, drafted by attorney Campbell,

bequeathing his home to Skirvin and her children. The 2010 will provided

for a particular legacy to Anderson of $25,000. On February 25, 2020, Dr.

Jones signed a codicil to the 2010 testament, prepared by attorney James

Rountree, in which he bequeathed the home at 102 K Street to Anderson.

3

The record reveals that Skirvin’s concerns related to Dr. Jones’s

finances and health arose just prior to the February 25, 2020 codicil, in or

around January 2020. Dr. Brian Calhoun (hereinafter, “Dr. Calhoun”) is a

family medicine doctor in Monroe and has been treating Dr. Jones since

2018. The record includes medical records from Dr. Calhoun’s office

containing “patient call notes,” beginning with entries from January 1, 2020.

On January 8, 2020, the patient call notes provide the first mention of

Dr. Jones’s dementia. The chart note reveals that Skirvin initiated contact

with Dr. Calhoun’s office to notify them that she had power of attorney for

Dr. Jones, and she would attend his upcoming appointment to discuss a

recent fall, medications, and “to discuss Alzheimers.” The January 2020

patient call notes show Dr. Jones’s initial diagnosis of cognitive decline or

dementia by Dr. Calhoun. At that time, Dr. Jones was referred to Dr. Brian

Stucki (hereinafter, “Dr. Stucki”), a neurologist. Dr. Jones began seeing Dr.

Stucki every three to six months, beginning in May 2020. Dr. Calhoun’s

patient call notes during this time period also show that Anderson frequently

contacted his office allegedly on Dr. Jones’s behalf with specific questions

regarding administration of medications and general medical treatment.

On December 14, 2020, Skirvin again contacted Dr. Calhoun,

expressing concerns regarding Anderson’s caregiving, specifically

administration of supplements and over-the-counter medication Benadryl.

The patient call note provides: “[Skirvin] was told he had 50% memory loss

which I have never told as I don’t give percentage of memory loss; niece has

attorney to help her with this.” The source on which Skirvin based her

4

assertion regarding Dr. Jones’s alleged 50% memory loss was never

revealed or called to testify.

Additional patient call notes from April 30, 2021, reveal that

Anderson called Dr. Calhoun’s office with a question regarding Dr. Jones’s

continued use of baby aspirin, since he was also taking the prescription

medication Eliquis. A misunderstanding on Dr. Calhoun’s end resulted in

his returning the call to Anderson, leaving a message insisting Dr. Jones

must continue taking the Eliquis. A subsequent call note on that date reveals

that Anderson clarified that he had asked Dr. Calhoun about discontinuing

the aspirin, not the Eliquis. It appears that in the meantime, Dr. Calhoun

spoke with Skirvin about the administration of Dr. Jones’s medications. On

May 3, 2021, the patient call note provides:

There initially was a concern that his caregiver,
Mr. Anderson wanted to stop the Eliquis.
However, when we called him back stating Mr.
Jones needed to remain on the Eliquis, he stated
that he never said anything about stopping the
Eliquis but wanted to know if he needed to stop his
ASA. Ms. Skirvin continues to have great
concerns for her uncle and the care he is receiving
from Mr. Anderson. I did agree Mr. Jones should
not sign any documents due to his dementia.

On September 15, 2021, Dr. Jones executed a donation, prepared by

attorney Rountree, “[i]n consideration of his gratitude for assistance in his

declining years,” donating an undivided one-half interest in his home to

Anderson, who had been his companion and caregiver for almost two

decades by that time. This is the same residence which was included as a

specific bequest to Anderson in Dr. Jones’s 2020 last will and testament.

On September 27, 2021, Dr. Jones fell at home. The record shows

that Dr. Jones fell in his bathroom when taking a shower. The following

5

morning, on September 28, 2021, Anderson called Dr. Calhoun’s office to

report the fall. Anderson explained that Dr. Jones was not actively bleeding,

had a bandage on the “scrape” on his head and stated he did not want to go

to the ER. It was later confirmed that at the time, September 2021,

Anderson and Dr. Jones were significantly concerned about possible

exposure in a hospital setting to COVID-19, considering Dr. Jones was 86 at

the time. Dr. Calhoun’s office staff instructed Anderson to take Dr. Jones to

the ER. That afternoon, Anderson took Dr. Jones to an urgent care clinic.

Dr. Jones was transferred to the ER, where he was diagnosed with an

intracranial hemorrhage. After testing, including MRIs and a CT scan, and

several hours of observation, Dr. Jones was sent home, without the need to

be transported to Shreveport or receive a higher level of care.

The record contains two letters from one week later, dated October 4,

2021, prepared by Dr. Calhoun. One letter states Dr. Jones “was first

diagnosed with dementia in January of 2020. His dementia is now of

moderate severity, and he should not be signing any legal documents

without his Power of Attorney present.” The second letter, also dated

October 4, 2021, states in its entirety: “Due to Mr. Jones declining health

and advancing dementia, I recommend Mr. Anderson be removed from Mr.

Jones care.1 If any further information is needed, please contact my office.”

It is apparent from the record these letters were initiated, if not prepared by,

Skirvin and submitted to Dr. Calhoun. There was no corresponding acute

medical treatment being provided to Dr. Jones on the date of these letters.

1
The record shows that Skirvin later clarified that the letter is intended to read,
“Mr. Jones be removed from Mr. Anderson’s care.”

6

Skirvin’s motive in obtaining the letters from Dr. Calhoun became evident

almost immediately.

Two days after receiving the letters from Dr. Calhoun, on October 6,

2021, Skirvin went to Cross Keys Bank, one of the banks utilized by Dr.

Jones, and provided them with a copy of the letters. Skirvin went to the

bank alone that day, notably without Dr. Jones present. The record shows

that Dr. Jones owned a certificate of deposit (“CD”) worth approximately

$12,000 at the bank, which had matured. Skirvin directed $5,000 of the CD

funds be used for a cashier’s check made out to Richard Campbell, an

attorney Skirvin had retained, for legal services in these interdiction

proceedings against Dr. Jones. Dr. Jones later testified that Skirvin did not

have express approval from him to use $5,000 of his funds for an attorney to

file suit to interdict him. Taking $5,000 of his money and instituting the

interdiction proceeding was cause for considerable consternation by Dr.

Jones directed toward Skirvin, as will be more fully detailed below. Skirvin

deposited the remaining funds from the CD into Dr. Jones’s savings account.

Approximately three weeks later, on October 27, 2021, before the

interdiction proceeding had been instituted, Dr. Jones executed a new power

of attorney with the help of attorney Rountree, naming Anderson as his

power of attorney. One of the witnesses to the power of attorney was Dr.

Jones’s long-time friend, Nanette Dennig, who works in attorney Rountree’s

law office and is a notary public. Anderson was present with Dr. Jones at

attorney Rountree’s office during the discussion of the new power of

attorney; the record shows that Anderson was instructed by attorney

Rountree not to speak when questions were addressed to Dr. Jones, to ensure

7

the responses Rountree received were accurately from Dr. Jones. Rountree

was apparently satisfied Dr. Jones was accurately and independently

conveying his wishes and intentions, and the power of attorney was drafted,

reviewed by Dr. Jones, and then signed before him in the presence of two

witnesses and notarized by Rountree.

On December 14, 2021, Dr. Jones executed a revocation of the

previous power of attorney in favor of Skirvin from 2003. In a letter on the

same date, attorney Rountree informed Skirvin: “Mr. Jones became

concerned when he discovered that you had withheld $5,000 from the

deposit you agreed to make on his behalf. He learned from the bank that

$5,000 had been transferred to Richard Campbell. That made him

concerned about the possibility of an interdiction proceeding, which would

be totally inappropriate.” In this letter to Skirvin, attorney Rountree attached

a letter from Dr. Stucki, Dr. Jones’s treating neurologist. Dr. Stucki’s letter,

dated December 2, 2021, provided, as follows:

Lessie Jones (DOB 4/17/1935) has been under my
care for dementia which is in the mild stages. He
does need help with some of his finances, but he
still has the mental capacity to be able to make
decisions regarding which financial adviser or
power of attorney he would like and is still able to
make decisions if they are explained in somewhat
simpler terms to him.

The December 14, 2021 letter to Skirvin from attorney Rountree further

provided that the statement from Dr. Stucki “should discourage any thought

of interdiction. Mr. Jones has appointed Lloyd Anderson as his agent to

assist him as suggested by the neurologist.” The record reflects this

assistance had been provided by Anderson when requested by Dr. Jones over

the years.

8

On January 12, 2022, Skirvin filed the petition for interdiction. The

petition alleged that after a diagnosis of dementia, Dr. Jones switched his

power of attorney from Skirvin to Anderson. The petition asserted that

Anderson is “in no way legally affiliated with Dr. Jones and is not a

relative.” The petition alleged that Skirvin, whose address was listed as

Bloomington, Indiana, is qualified to serve as curator over Dr. Jones’s estate.

The petition further alleged that Anderson is not entitled to preferential

treatment under La. C. C. P. art. 45612 because at the time of the execution

of the power of attorney, Dr. Jones was not capable of making a reasoned

decision due to his medical diagnosis. The petition alleged that Dr. Jones’s

dementia was treated with numerous medications, and also noted that he is

blind in one eye and has limited mobility. The petition also asserted that Dr.

Jones is “subject to the influence of Mr. Anderson, such that his property

and person are in imminent danger. He is no longer capable of making

reasoned decisions regarding the care of his person or his property.” The

petition asserted that a full interdiction was necessary for Dr. Jones’s own

protection and that his interests could not be protected by less restrictive

means. A preliminary protective order was filed with the petition,

specifically alleging abuse by Anderson to both Dr. Jones’s person and

property.

Pursuant to the filing of the petition and preliminary protective order,

the trial court issued an ex parte temporary restraining order prohibiting

2
La. C. C. P. art. 4561(C)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that the court shall
consider the qualified persons in the following order of preference:
(a) A person designated by the defendant in a writing signed by him while he had
sufficient ability to communicate a reasoned preference.

9

Anderson from using his power of attorney, as well as ordering his removal

from the premises of 102 K Street, Monroe, Louisiana.3 On January 14,

2022, Anderson filed a motion to vacate the temporary restraining order.

Anderson argued that he had served as Jones’s caregiver for 18 years, during

which time he resided with Dr. Jones. Anderson asserted that there were no

circumstances justifying the issuance of the temporary restraining order, or

that any threat existed to Dr. Jones’s person or property. Anderson asserted

that Dr. Jones needed assistance due to his frailty but not because he was

mentally incompetent.

On January 18, 2022, Skirvin filed a supplemental and amending

petition for temporary restraining order and for preliminary injunction,

claiming that she had ongoing concerns that Anderson was taking action that

was detrimental to the health and well-being of Dr. Jones. Further, Skirvin

reiterated her claimed concerns that Anderson would dispose of Dr. Jones’s

property. Along with the petition, a motion to appoint a medical examiner

was filed by Skirvin, naming Dr. Frank Weinholt (hereinafter, “Dr.

Weinholt”), a geriatric psychiatrist, as the proposed court-appointed expert.

On January 20, 2022, a hearing was held on the petition for temporary

restraining order and preliminary injunction. Dr. Calhoun testified at the

hearing as Dr. Jones’s primary care physician, saying he treats patients with

dementia but does not have specialized medical training in mental decline or

psychiatry. Dr. Calhoun testified that he is qualified to make the diagnosis

of dementia, but not Alzheimer’s disease.4 Dr. Calhoun testified that in the

3
Anderson was removed from the home by police, spending one night away. He
was able to return the following day.
4
The record does not contain evidence that Dr. Jones has ever received a
diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease.

10

fall of 2021, Dr. Jones received a score of 23 out of 30 on the Montreal

Cognitive Assessment (“MoCA”) Test for dementia, which indicates only

mild impairment. Dr. Calhoun further testified that he agreed with Skirvin

that as of May 2021, Dr. Jones should not be signing legal documents. Dr.

Calhoun described the evidence he observed of Dr. Jones’s mental decline as

forgetfulness, becoming visibly weaker, and requiring some assistance with

walking. Dr. Calhoun testified that Dr. Stucki, the treating neurologist, had

modified some of Dr. Jones’s medication that were originally prescribed to

him. Dr. Calhoun further testified that he had never communicated directly

with Dr. Stucki about Dr. Jones’s medical treatment, and that he had never

witnessed Dr. Jones experience any hallucinations, paranoia, or unusual

behavior in his clinic. An issue with a medication prescribed by Dr.

Calhoun, which is known to exacerbate the symptoms described by Skirvin

and Dr. Calhoun, was raised by Dr. Stucki, who subsequently discontinued

the prescription.

Dr. Calhoun was questioned regarding the October 4, 2021 letters he

submitted related to Dr. Jones’s capacity to execute legal documents:

Q: What prompted you to write that letter, Dr.
Calhoun?

A: There was a phone call from Ms. Skirvin and
she had just concerns about his wellbeing,
concerns about finances, and that – that decisions
might be made on his part that she felt that most
likely she needed to be there.

Dr. Calhoun testified that in his opinion, Dr. Jones did not have the capacity

to make the decision to remove Skirvin as his power of attorney and put

Anderson in her place. On cross-examination, Dr. Calhoun admitted that

both Dr. Stucki and Dr. Weinholt would be more qualified than him to

11

diagnose and treat dementia in elderly patients. Dr. Calhoun testified that in

his opinion, a lawyer should require a medical opinion regarding capacity in

order for a client with cognitive decline (like Dr. Jones) to validly execute a

legal document, even if the lawyer thoroughly questioned him regarding his

capacity and intentions and received responsive answers. When questioned

directly by the trial court judge, Dr. Calhoun testified that he had never met

Skirvin, and she had not attended any appointments at his office with Dr.

Jones. He testified he did not have concerns about Anderson prior to these

interdiction proceedings “[b]ecause he was there at every appointment with

him.” Apparently, it was only the allegations by Skirvin about Anderson

that raised any concern with Dr. Calhoun, as he had never witnessed any

conditions prompting him to independently make note of it in his records.

Dr. Calhoun concluded that his opinion regarding Dr. Jones’s legal capacity

in May 2021 had not changed since he wrote the October 4, 2021 letters.

Skirvin testified at the hearing on the temporary restraining order and

preliminary injunction. She testified that she typically visited her uncle one

to two times a year in Monroe. In 2003, Dr. Jones executed a power of

attorney in her favor during one of her visits. In 2010, Dr. Jones provided

her a copy of his will, and she witnessed him place a copy of the will in his

safe. Skirvin testified that throughout the years during her visits, she saw the

will in his safe “each and every time,” at her uncle’s request when they went

over his affairs together. Skirvin testified that in January 2020, she attended

one appointment at Dr. Calhoun’s office with Dr. Jones and Anderson to go

over medications and to discuss his dementia diagnosis. Skirvin testified

that she had weekly telephone calls with her uncle. She testified that the

12

calls were not private; they took place on speaker phone due to Dr. Jones’s

difficulty hearing. Skirvin alleged she would “hear [Anderson] whispering

to her uncle how to answer.” She also testified that Anderson restricted her

ability to visit Dr. Jones and threatened to move him to Georgia. Skirvin

recorded some of her telephone calls with Dr. Jones because she heard

Anderson saying what she described as troubling things to him, including

yelling at him and instructing him on how to respond. 5 Skirvin testified that

she first became concerned about Anderson’s caregiving in January 2020.

She claims her concerns were heightened when Anderson allegedly withheld

care from Dr. Jones until the day after his fall in the bathroom on September

27, 2021.6 She spoke with Dr. Calhoun, who recommended Dr. Jones be

removed from Anderson’s care. Skirvin testified that when she went to

Cross Keys Bank on October 6, 2021, she did not misappropriate $5,000 but

used it to engage attorney Campbell in order to protect Dr. Jones. Skirvin

testified that she spoke with Dr. Jones about this and suggested that they use

$5,000 for an attorney to protect him and his assets because the doctors were

concerned about his care. Skirvin testified that prior to these interdiction

proceedings, she last saw her uncle on October 14, 2021. On that date, she

witnessed him acting confused and agitated.

At the conclusion of the hearing on January 20, 2022, the trial court

signed an order to modify the temporary restraining order, allowing

Anderson to contact Dr. Jones and enter and remain at the home at 102 K

5
Audio of the telephone calls between Skirvin and Dr. Jones was entered into
evidence at the hearing.
6
As noted above, when Anderson took Dr. Jones to be examined, after testing
there was no additional treatment deemed necessary or recommended.

13

Street. Additionally, the trial court granted the motion to appoint Dr.

Weinholt as medical examiner in this matter. The trial court also ordered

Anderson to refrain from using his power of attorney, and set weekly

visitation between Skirvin and Dr. Jones.

On April 8, 2022, Dr. Jones attended his examination with Dr.

Weinholt, the court-appointed medical expert. On May 27, 2022, Dr.

Weinholt issued his report. The report begins:

In response to your request, Mr. Lessie Jones was
seen on April 8, 2022, at my office in West
Monroe, LA, for the purpose of assessing his level
of dementia and his ability to choose his Power of
Attorney. He was brought by his caregiver, Mr.
Lloyd Anderson. Mr. Jones was first interviewed
by himself, then in conjunction with his caregiver.

Dr. Weinholt’s report further provides:

[Dr. Jones] does indeed suffer from a dementia
that can be characterized as mild to moderate. He
is still able to do all his own ADL’s (activities of
daily living). His dementia renders him impaired
in recall, calculation, task solving, praxis,
planning, etc. But at the same time, his dementia
is not severe enough that he […] is unable to know
and make known his own wants and needs.

Dr. Weinholt’s report states that Dr. Jones is aware that he is impaired, and

“he retains the ability to choose who he wants to help him with areas that he

recognizes he is impaired in.” Dr. Weinholt’s report provides that upon

more formal testing during his examination, Dr. Jones scored an 11-12 on

the MoCA Test, indicating mild to moderate dementia. The report notes that

Dr. Jones has some difficulty finding words, but is able to make himself

understood. Dr. Weinholt’s report concludes:

It has been my experience that in many similar
cases, courts have always followed the principle of
the least restrictive alternative, which in this case

14

would allow the patient to continue to rely on his
partner of 20 years and allow him to serve as his
Power of Attorney. Given Mr. Jones’s ability to
still choose who he wants to serve in this position,
as well as his understanding of what this involves,
there appears to be no compelling need for the
assignment of a Curator.

On June 2, 2022, a hearing was held regarding Dr. Weinholt’s report.

Skirvin raised issues with the report and argued that Dr. Weinholt applied an

improper standard in reaching his conclusions. Specifically, Dr. Weinholt’s

report referred to a power of attorney, but did not expressly provide his

response to the question of whether Dr. Jones was able to consistently make

reasoned decisions as to his person and property as set forth as the threshold

consideration in La. C. C. art. 389. Skirvin argued that Anderson’s presence

during part of Dr. Weinholt’s examination was improper, and Anderson

provided him with inaccurate information. In response, Anderson argued

that he simply transported Dr. Jones to his examination. Further, Anderson

noted that Dr. Weinholt’s conclusions, including the appropriateness of a

power of attorney, reflected his experience in providing his medical opinion

in interdiction proceedings. The trial court concluded that the report did not

answer the specific question he was asked to answer – whether Dr. Jones is

capable of consistently making reasonable decisions regarding the care of

his person and/or property. Therefore, the trial court ordered a continuance

to allow for his deposition to supplement the information contained in and

considerations in preparing his report.

On June 22, 2022, Dr. Weinholt was deposed in order to clarify his

expert opinion. Dr. Weinholt testified that after medical school, he received

specialty training in psychiatry and practices primarily in the field of

15

geriatric psychiatry. During his deposition, Dr. Weinholt noted that Dr.

Jones referred to Anderson as his “partner.” Dr. Weinholt testified that he

requested a portion of his interview with Dr. Jones be conducted with

Anderson present in order to fully assess Dr. Jones’s level of functioning.

During the deposition, Dr. Weinholt was questioned by Skirvin’s counsel

regarding the standard for interdiction:

Q: […] On his own, is he able to consistently make
reasoned decisions regarding the care of his person
and/or property?

A: Absent anyone that he trusts to help him?

Q: Yes.

A: Absent that? Then I don’t think so. No.

Q: Okay.

A: Absent that. But again, the decision to rely on
someone I think is a reasoned decision.

On July 7, 2022, the two-day final interdiction hearing began. Dr.

Weinholt testified at the hearing, corroborating his testimony from his

deposition and the opinions contained in his report. Dr. Weinholt’s in-

person testimony concluded with questioning by the trial court judge on the

threshold issue of interdiction:

Q: So, just in conclusion, you don’t believe that he
can consistently make reasoned decisions about his
person, his property on a daily basis, but you do
believe that he has the capacity to choose who he
would like to do that for him?

A: Right.

Q: To assist him with that?

A: Right.

16

Anderson testified at the hearing, stating that he has lived at 102 K

Street with Dr. Jones for 20 years and that he assists Dr. Jones in paying his

bills, but Dr. Jones signs his own checks. Anderson transports Dr. Jones to

all of his appointments and helps to administer his medications. Anderson

testified, “I am with him 24 hours a day.” Regarding Dr. Jones’s fall at

home on September 27, 2021, Anderson stated that Dr. Jones’s head stopped

bleeding shortly afterward and when he called Dr. Calhoun’s office, the staff

advised them to go to the emergency room. Anderson testified that he had

received advice to avoid the emergency room due to the COVID-19

pandemic. He and Dr. Jones decided together to go to an urgent care clinic

the next morning; from there, they were sent to the emergency room. After

hours of observation, Dr. Jones was released from the hospital and sent

home. Anderson testified that the patient call note from Dr. Calhoun’s

office that stated he did not want to take Dr. Jones to the emergency room

was inaccurate.

Anderson also testified regarding the $5,000 of Dr. Jones’s funds that

Skirvin used to seek Dr. Jones’s interdiction, saying her decision to go to the

bank alone to handle the maturation of the CD “set off alarms to [Dr. Jones]

and me.” Anderson testified that Skirvin did not produce a receipt for them

of the deposit, which worried Dr. Jones. Anderson claimed that Dr. Jones

knew nothing about the $5,000 retainer to attorney Campbell until the two of

them went to a different Cross Keys Bank branch location and spoke to a

teller there. Anderson testified that Dr. Jones was angry and upset that

Skirvin took the $5,000 without discussing it with him.

17

Anderson testified that any information he relayed to Dr. Jones’s

doctors came directly from Dr. Jones, and he does not attempt to influence

him. Anderson denied interfering in Dr. Jones’s relationship with Skirvin,

and that prior to their current issues, he and Skirvin had gotten along, and he

did not have any issues with her. Anderson confirmed that he had never

attended any of Dr. Jones’s visits to Indiana but that Dr. Jones had enjoyed

going to visit the family farm.

On cross-examination, Anderson testified that he is more than a

friend, caretaker, or companion, and that he and Dr. Jones are partners.7

Anderson testified that he cooks breakfast for them, and Dr. Jones dresses

himself in the mornings. Anderson assists him with bathing, but Dr. Jones

goes to the bathroom on his own. Anderson explained that Dr. Jones sleeps

in the bed, and he sleeps in a recliner near the bed and is awake when Dr.

Jones goes to the bathroom in the night. When asked by the trial court judge

if he believed that Dr. Jones could make decisions on a daily basis that are

good for him about his person and his property, Anderson acknowledged:

“He needs help.”

Skirvin also testified at the final interdiction hearing stating that

during the court-ordered visits to her uncle’s home in February 2022,

Anderson was interfering with her ability to enter the home. Skirvin

testified that on February 20, 2022, she rang the doorbell, and her uncle

initially told her he did not want to see her. Skirvin was ultimately able to

enjoy her visit, but testified that Dr. Jones was nervous because she believed

7
Anderson testified: “Well, you think gay people go out and just split that to
everybody? A lot of people don’t take that good. So, you just don’t go out spewing it to
everybody. When you live with somebody twenty years you kind of figure they’re going
to figure it out.”

18

he knew Anderson would be back home soon. On February 27, 2022, Dr.

Jones told her he did not want to see her, and she was not able to enter his

home. Skirvin explained that other friends of Dr. Jones and Anderson’s

were in the house, hovering and preventing her from coming inside.

Throughout March and April 2022, Skirvin was again personally told by Dr.

Jones that he did not want her to come inside, and she was not able to have

her visits with him. On one occasion, she waved down a police officer who

was driving by and explained that she was there trying to visit her uncle and

Anderson was preventing her from doing so.

Skirvin testified that she is acting to protect Dr. Jones from Anderson.

She reiterated her prior testimony that she did discuss that $5,000 retainer

for attorney Campbell with Dr. Jones, and she produced a receipt for him

and Anderson on October 6, 2021. She testified, in relation to October 6,

2021, that Dr. Jones “keeps meticulous records and in his desk he has

binders, the receipt was shown to him.” Skirvin testified that she is

concerned about Anderson handling Dr. Jones’s finances, because Dr.

Jones’s signature appears different on some of his checks, and she has seen

some checks to cash. Skirvin communicated with Cross Keys Banks and

obtained a copy of Dr. Jones’s transaction history. Skirvin admitted she

does not have any actual evidence that Anderson is taking Dr. Jones’s

money. The complete absence of any evidence to support Skirvin’s repeated

allegations of financial impropriety by Anderson on any level will be

addressed in greater detail below.

Skirvin testified that the plan with Dr. Jones since 2003, when he

granted her the power of attorney, was that he would eventually move back

19

to Indiana. She testified that, more recently, Dr. Jones has said he would

like to stay in Monroe, and she was accommodating his request. Skirvin

testified that she was renting a home in Monroe, but her children and

grandchildren all reside in Indiana. Skirvin testified that Dr. Jones never

referred to Anderson as anything other than a friend. Skirvin testified that

Dr. Jones has had relationships in the past, and those other partners came

and visited her home, while Anderson had not.

Dr. Jones testified at his own interdiction hearing. He testified that he

and Anderson live together, and have for a long time; Anderson helps him,

and he is dependent on him. When asked whether he had any doubt about

Anderson’s faithfulness to him as a friend, Dr. Jones responded: “Oh, I have

no doubt about that. A true friend.” Dr. Jones testified that he did not recall

speaking with Skirvin about her paying $5,000 to attorney Campbell. He

testified he was upset when he learned about it, because “we didn’t discuss it

or anything, she just did it.” Dr. Jones did not specifically remember the

purpose of the $5,000. Dr. Jones testified that after the issue with the

deposit, he appointed Anderson as his power of attorney. Dr. Jones testified

that he remembered talking to his friend, Nanette Dennig, about the power

of attorney. He stated: “She is a personal friend and her husband helps us

with a lot of our needs. He’s a carpenter and all.” Dr. Jones testified that

Anderson did not influence him as to his choice of power of attorney. Dr.

Jones did not specifically remember signing a new will on the date he

assigned a new power of attorney to Anderson, but did remember his

donation of the one-half interest in their house to Anderson. When asked if

he understood what he was doing when he made the donation, he responded:

20

“Well, yes. Sure.” Dr. Jones testified that he remembered cancelling

Skirvin’s power of attorney, explaining that he did not “feel like I could

work with her.” Dr. Jones testified that if someone were appointed to take

care of him, he would want that person to be Anderson. Dr. Jones stated:

“Well, we’ve been together for quite a while and he knows my needs and so

on and he’s been taking care of me and we’ve worked together and lived

together and so, I have appreciated that.”

On cross-examination, Dr. Jones could not recall who his attorney was

in 2003 when he appointed Skirvin as his power of attorney. Dr. Jones

testified that he and Skirvin are not close anymore because his trust in her

has diminished. When Skirvin took the $5,000 from his CD, Dr. Jones

recalled that it was “about a year ago.” Dr. Jones agreed that his memory

was not good. When asked who he considered his attorney to be, Dr. Jones

responded: “I’m trying to think what I used attorneys for. I don’t know.”

He could not recall the names of the restaurants he previously owned in

Monroe, but did recall that he had sold them. Dr. Jones remembered his

evaluation with Dr. Weinholt. Dr. Jones confirmed that he understood that

Anderson had a power of attorney for him. He testified that he signs his

own checks, with the assistance of Anderson balancing his checkbook.

Nanette Dennig testified that she has known Dr. Jones for about 35

years. Dennig works in attorney Rountree’s office and was present on

October 27, 2021, when Dr. Jones made changes to his will and executed the

power of attorney for Anderson. Dennig confirmed that Anderson did not

speak when Rountree was working with Dr. Jones on the documents.

Dennig testified that she did not have any doubt that Dr. Jones understood

21

what he was doing. She testified that Dr. Jones read the documents and

signed them on his own. After two days of testimony, the interdiction

hearing concluded on July 8, 2022.

On July 22, 2022, a hearing was held regarding the ruling on the

petition for interdiction. During his oral ruling, the trial court stated that

there was clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Jones was incapable of

making consistently reasonable decisions regarding the care of his person

and property. As to whether there are less restrictive means available to

protect his interest, the trial court voiced concerns regarding the validity of

the power of attorney in favor of Anderson executed on October 27, 2021.

The trial court also noted that the previous power of attorney in favor of

Skirvin dated back to 2003. The trial court did not declare the October 27,

2021 power of attorney invalid, but expressed its concerns. The trial court

stated:

However, in this case unlike, I guess every case
stands on its own, but in this case I think there are
some real issues, real concern, doubt, I don’t know
what the right adjective might be about, whether or
not that power of attorney that was executed in
October is in fact valid. That was not what was
at issue in this proceeding, but I do have some
little doubts about whether or not Dr. Jones was
capable when he did execute those documents in
October. (emphasis added)

Apparently recognizing the acrimonious relationship that had developed

between Skirvin and Anderson, the existence of competing powers of

attorney, and the certainty of protracted litigation regarding those documents

and others in the waning years of Dr. Jones’s life, the trial court found that

there were no less restrictive means than full interdiction to protect Dr.

Jones. The trial court granted a full interdiction of Dr. Jones. Skirvin was

22

appointed as the curator of Dr. Jones’s property and undercurator of his

person, and Anderson was appointed as curator of Dr. Jones’s person, and

undercurator of his property. The trial court arranged for a schedule of

visitation between Skirvin and Dr. Jones. The trial court explained that

Skirvin would be responsible for all property issues, and Anderson would be

responsible for Dr. Jones’s day-to-day care and maintaining his medical

regiment.

The written judgment of interdiction was entered on August 4, 2022.

Dr. Jones now appeals the full interdiction and appointment of Skirvin as

curator.

DISCUSSION

Dr. Jones asserts three assignments of error (verbatim):

1. Skirvin did not bear the burden of proving necessity for interdiction.

2. In October 2021, when Dr. Jones granted Anderson power of attorney,
he had the requisite legal capacity; the power of attorney is a valid act.

3. If grounds for interdiction existed, and they did not, Anderson should
have been appointed curator.

Assignment of Error Number 1: Skirvin did not bear the burden of
proving necessity for interdiction.

Dr. Jones contends that Skirvin failed to prove by clear and

convincing evidence that Anderson posed a threat to the person or property

of her uncle and that there was not a means of protecting his interests that is

less restrictive than an interdiction.

La. C. C. art. 389 provides, with emphasis added:

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

23

communicate those decisions, and whose interests
cannot be protected by less restrictive means.

Thus, only if a person is consistently unable to make reasoned decisions

regarding the care of both his person and his property, or to communicate

those decisions, is he a candidate for full interdiction. This initial threshold

inquiry must be satisfied before there is a need to consider less restrictive

means as an alternative.

A person is unable to consistently make reasoned decisions if, for

example, he suffers from an infirmity which intermittently deprives him of

reason. La. C.C. art. 389, Revision Comments (d). Full interdiction is a last

resort and, as a result, is warranted only when a person’s interests cannot be

protected by less restrictive means. A person’s interests can be protected by

less restrictive means if, for example, his interests (1) are currently being

protected by other legal arrangements, including a procuration, mandate, or

trust, or (2) could be protected by other legal arrangements, including

limited interdiction. If the court determines that less restrictive means can

protect the defendant’s interests, the court should deny full interdiction. La.

C.C. art. 389, Revision Comments (e).

The petitioner in an interdiction proceeding bears the burden of proof

by clear and convincing evidence. La. C.C.P. art. 4548; see also, In re

Clement, 45,454 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/11/10), 46 So. 3d 804. To prove a matter

by clear and convincing evidence means to demonstrate that the existence of

a disputed fact is highly probable, that is, much more probable than its

nonexistence. In re Interdiction of DeMarco, 09-1791 (La. App. 1 Cir.

4/7/10), 38 So. 3d 417.

24

This court recognizes the tremendous implications and ramifications

of interdiction. Interdiction is so harsh a remedy that it has been described

as “a pronouncement of civil death without the dubious advantage of an

inscription thereof on a tombstone.” Doll v. Doll, 156 So. 2d 275 (La. App. 4

Cir. 1963). Since it is so harsh, interdiction may not be used as a matter of

convenience, hence the stiff burden of proof. Interdiction of Lemmons, 511

So. 2d 57 (1987). The determination of whether to order interdiction is a

finding of fact. Thus, the trial court’s judgment will not be set aside in the

absence of manifest error or unless it is clearly wrong. Stobart v. State,

Through DOTD, 617 So. 2d 880 (La. 1993).

The initial inquiry in the present matter is whether Dr. Jones is

consistently able to make reasoned decisions regarding the care of his person

and property, or to communicate those decisions as set forth in La. C. C. art.

389. In reaching its conclusion that Dr. Jones was not able to do so, the trial

court had the benefit of evidence and testimony from Dr. Jones’s treating

physicians as well as a court-appointed expert in the field of geriatric

psychiatry.

There is no dispute that Dr. Jones received a diagnosis of dementia in

or around January 2020. The testimony of Dr. Calhoun, Dr. Stucki, and Dr.

Weinholt offer insight into Dr. Jones’s condition over the few years

immediately prior to the filing of the petition seeking his interdiction. The

testimony of each physician confirms that Dr. Jones has suffered from mild

to moderate dementia since at least early 2020. A diagnosis of mild to

moderate dementia in and of itself, however, would not necessitate such a

harsh remedy as full interdiction. A more detailed and in-depth inquiry must

25

be undertaken to determine the extent of symptoms exhibited and the full

extent of the intended interdict’s reasoning and functioning.

All three of the medical experts who testified in court or by deposition

recognized that Dr. Jones could not consistently make reasoned decisions

regarding his person or his property. Dr. Calhoun expressed concerns about

Anderson’s caregiving and testified that he did not believe that Dr. Jones

possessed the requisite capacity to change his power of attorney on October

27, 2021. His opinion contained in his October 4, 2021 letters to Skirvin

was that Dr. Jones should not sign legal documents without his power of

attorney present. While the comments from Dr. Calhoun are not medical

treatment and wander more into legal conclusions, they may be helpful to

the trial court nonetheless.

On December 2, 2021 – over a month after Dr. Jones executed his

new power of attorney in favor of Anderson – Dr. Stucki provided his

opinion that his dementia was in the mild stages but that his mental decline

was progressing. He acknowledged that Dr. Jones did require assistance

with finances. Dr. Stucki stated that if things were explained to him in

simple terms, he could make reasonable decisions.

On April 8, 2022 – three months after interdiction proceedings had

been initiated – Dr. Weinholt examined Dr. Jones. The record clearly shows

that Dr. Weinholt had experience in evaluating individuals in the context of

an interdiction proceeding. During his testimony at the final interdiction

hearing, Dr. Weinholt, in responding to questioning from the trial court

directed to the foundational concern in considering a request for interdiction,

described Dr. Jones’s condition as follows:

26

Q: […] [D]o you believe that gentleman, Dr.
Jones, can consistently make reasoned decisions
about his person or his property irrespective of
somebody helping him or a power of attorney, just
as a general statement?

A: Without help of someone he trusts I don’t think
so, no.

Dr. Weinholt’s assessment of Dr. Jones and his conclusion that Dr.

Jones lacked the ability to consistently make reasoned decisions about his

person or property satisfies the initial threshold required by La. C. C. art.

389. It was not manifestly erroneous for the trial court to rely on the

testimony of the treating physicians, court-appointed medical examiner, and

others to conclude Dr. Jones was unable consistently to make reasoned

decisions regarding the care of his person and property.

While such a consideration permits a “yes” or “no” conclusion with

the assistance of testimony and evidence from treating physicians and court-

appointed experts, the second consideration in determining if viable less

restrictive means to interdiction are available is a far more complex analysis.

In reaching a decision on that issue, the court must consider the totality of

the circumstances and best interest of the proposed interdict and factors in

his everyday life in reaching its conclusion.

As noted above, La. C.C. art. 389 provides the second consideration

for a full interdiction – whether Dr. Jones’s interests can be “protected by

less restrictive means.” Such a task is not a simple inquiry. Concerning Dr.

Jones, the record reveals a possible “less restrictive means” could potentially

be a previously executed power of attorney. Here, we have two powers of

attorney: one in favor of his niece, Skirvin, and the other in favor of his

companion and caretaker for almost 20 years, Anderson. The record makes

27

clear that Skirvin and Anderson are clearly at odds and are entrenched in

their opposition to the other. Dr. Jones, unfortunately, is caught in the

middle.

On one hand, there is Skirvin’s power of attorney, which was revoked

by Dr. Jones, his repeated expressions of displeasure that she diverted

$5,000 of his funds to attempt to interdict him, and his testimony that he no

longer could work with her. Skirvin’s actions clearly damaged their

relationship in the eyes of Dr. Jones, which he reiterated in his testimony to

the trial court. Her role as agent was replaced by Anderson in the

subsequent power of attorney in his favor from Dr. Jones, who testified he

wanted and trusted his almost 20-year companion to act in his best interest.

On the other hand, Anderson, the longtime companion of Dr. Jones, is

named in recent powers of attorney and is the beneficiary of bequests and

donations which have clearly been telegraphed by Skirvin to be the subject

of impending added litigation. Skirvin suggests both the power of attorney in

favor of Anderson and the revocation of her power of attorney were

executed during a time Dr. Jones lacked requisite capacity and potentially

were the product of fraud or undue influence. Skirvin solicited letters to that

effect to support her planned action to interdict Dr. Jones. Regardless of

Skirvin’s allegations, the legitimacy and effect of the power of attorney in

favor of Anderson and revocation of the power of attorney in favor of

Skirvin have not been directly challenged. However, the likelihood of Dr.

Jones spending the remaining years of his life in depositions or trials appears

very likely on those issues, as well as potential challenges to the codicil to

Dr. Jones’s will, which had previously been primarily in favor of Skirvin.

28

Sadly, nothing primes the pump of contention and litigation like an estate

with assets and legatees ready to battle over competing wills and bequests.

Consideration by the trial court of that very real possibility is also an

appropriate consideration in determining if a “less restrictive means” than

interdiction of Dr. Jones is available. Is there a power of attorney (or two)?

Yes. Is it highly suggestive of litigation on multiple issues – both the

revocation and new power of attorney? Yes. Is involving 87-year-old Dr.

Jones in continued protracted litigation all at his expense over the remaining

years of his life in his best interest? Clearly, no. The consideration should

focus on Dr. Jones’s interests, his person, and his property. The integrity of

his life, which for the last 20 years with Anderson had operated smoothly

with appropriate medical care and no financial improprieties, is a legitimate

consideration here. The absence of any evidence to support Skirvin’s

repeated claims of impropriety of Anderson is another.

Considering the unique facts and circumstances of this matter, with

competing powers of attorney, revocations, out-of-state relatives, and a

longstanding companion, as well as the near certainty of continued and

expanded litigation at Dr. Jones’s expense in what are likely the waning

years of his life, we find it was not manifestly erroneous for the trial court to

conclude there is no less restrictive means available other than full

interdiction of Dr. Jones to be in his best interest. Such a result ends

litigation over the effectiveness of competing powers of attorney between

Skirvin and Anderson.

This determination pretermits consideration of Dr. Jones’s second

assignment of error regarding Anderson’s power of attorney, which now is

29

of no effect for future actions, and we move to consideration of the third

assignment of error regarding the appointment of a curator.

Assignment of Error Number 3: If grounds for interdiction existed, and
they did not, Lloyd Anderson should have been appointed curator.

Dr. Jones argues that the October 27, 2021 power of attorney

specifically provides that Anderson is nominated to be his curator. He

argues that Anderson satisfies two higher criteria provided in La. C. C. P.

art. 4561(C)(1), which provides that the court shall consider the qualified

persons in the following order of preference:

(a) A person designated by the defendant in writing
signed by him while he had sufficient ability to
communicate a reasoned preference.

(b) The spouse of the defendant.

(c) An adult child of the defendant.

(d) A parent of the defendant.

(e) An individual with whom the defendant has
resided for more than 6 months prior to the
filing of the petition.

(f) Any other person. (emphasis added).

Dr. Jones notes that Skirvin qualifies under La. C. C. P art. 4561(C)(1) only

as “any other person” and the power of attorney in her favor has been

revoked. Anderson, however, has been designated by Dr. Jones in a power

of attorney, and he was also identified by Dr. Jones to Dr. Weinholt and the

trial court judge as the person he prefers. Additionally, Anderson has

resided with Dr. Jones for decades, far in excess of the 6 months provided in

La. C. C. P. art. 4561(C)(1)(e), which is another significant factor in

favoring Anderson as curator for Dr. Jones.

30

After determining that Dr. Jones was unable consistently to make

reasoned decisions regarding the care of his person and property, or to

communicate those decisions, and (due to the very unique and litigious

environment directly impacting Dr. Jones) that his interests could not be

protected by less restrictive means, the trial court then appointed Anderson

as the curator of Dr. Jones’s person and Skirvin as curator of Dr. Jones’s

property. It is this decision, to place Skirvin as curator over the day-to-day

finances of Dr. Jones, that we take issue and find to be manifestly erroneous

under the circumstances.

As detailed above, Skirvin resides in Indiana. The power of attorney

from decades ago has been revoked. She is clearly at odds with Dr. Jones as

a result of using $5,000 of his own money in an attempt to interdict him.

She has made several repeated allegations and statements about substandard

care of Dr. Jones by Anderson, which are not supported in the record. She

has also repeated scandalous allegations against Anderson of

misappropriation of funds from Dr. Jones by repeatedly including those

allegations in pleadings in this matter and by expressing those same

allegations to Dr. Calhoun and others. At no point in the proceedings,

including at the hearings, could Skirvin produce any evidence to support

those serious and oft-repeated allegations. As one illustration, regarding

allegations of Anderson taking money from Dr. Jones – allegations she

asserted in the petition for interdiction and repeated in her requests for a

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction – Skirvin eventually

had to answer under oath during cross-examination at trial:

Q: […] But do you have any evidence of Lloyd
Anderson taking your uncle’s money?

31

A: I don’t personally.

Considering the absence of any evidence whatsoever of financial

mismanagement or other impropriety by Anderson during the 20 years of

residing with and caring for Dr. Jones, and Anderson’s satisfying at least

two preferential considerations in being designated as curator, pursuant to

La. C. C. P. art. 4561(C)(1), the appointment of Skirvin to oversee the

financial affairs of Dr. Jones is manifestly erroneous. Inserting Skirvin in

the decision-making role over Dr. Jones’s finances all but guarantees

circumstances where every expense and utility bill, medical or pharmacy

expense, and everything else in the normal course of life as has existed for

almost two decades will result in delay and animosity in the ongoing conflict

between Anderson and Skirvin. None of this is in Dr. Jones’s best interest,

to either his person or his property. The day-to-day existence of Dr. Jones is

only made exponentially more difficult by placing Skirvin in such a position

of authority and control, when there is no evidence of any impropriety by

Anderson. Dr. Jones expressed a desire in the new power of attorney, to Dr.

Weinholt, and at trial, that his trusted companion, Anderson, be the person to

serve as his caretaker and look after his person and property. Appointing

Skirvin as his undercurator – a relative with a history of involvement with

Dr. Jones – will allow her access to ensure his continued care and property

are managed appropriately. However, she should not be in the position to

exert day-to-day financial or care decisions over Dr. Jones’s person or

property, as long as Anderson is available to continue to fulfill the duties the

record indicates he has successfully and dutifully fulfilled these many years.

Considering the foregoing, we find the trial court’s appointment of Skirvin

32

as curator of Dr. Jones’s property to be manifestly erroneous. We modify

the judgment to name Anderson as curator of Dr. Jones’s person and

property, and to name Skirvin as undercurator of Dr. Jones’s person and

property.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we affirm the full interdiction of Dr. Jones and modify

the judgment of the trial court by naming Anderson as curator of Dr. Jones’s

person and property and name Skirvin as undercurator of both Dr. Jones’s

person and property. Costs of this appeal are split half to appellant, Dr.

Jones, and half to appellee, Skirvin.

AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.

33