Court Opinion

ID: 9896344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 21:09:43.073085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:42.825396
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                               STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                COURT OF APPEAL

                                   FIRST CIRCUIT

                                    2023 CA 0084

     U GEORGE CRAFT O/B/O HENRIETTA CRAFT, WILLIE CRAFT
                      AND LARRY CRAFT

                                      VERSUS

                                 CHERYL OGUNBOR
Uv

                                 DATE OF JUDGMENT..            NOV 0 9 2013

      ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
                   PARISH OF WASHINGTON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
                              NUMBER 112575, DIVISION C

                       HONORABLE RICHARD A. S WARTZ, JUDGE

     Barry W. Bolton                         Counsel for Plaintiff A
                                                                   - ppellee
     Bogalusa, Louisiana                     George Craft

     Cheryl Ogunbor                         Defendant -Appellant
     Tylertown, Mississippi                 In Proper Person

                   BEFORE: GUIDRY, C.J., CHUTZ, AND LANIER, JJ.

     Disposition: RULE TO SHOW CAUSE RECALLED AND APPEAL MAINTAINED; JUDGMENT
     AFFIRMED.
CHUTZ, J.

        Defendant -appellant,    Cheryl    Ogunbor,     appeals    a   trial   court judgment

upholding the validity of powers of attorney granted in favor of George Craft and

revoking an earlier power of attorney granted in favor of Cheryl. We affirm.

                FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

        Cheryl, a resident of Tylertown, Mississippi, and George,                a   resident   of

Trophy Club, Texas, are two of the nine children of Henrietta Craft. Mrs. Craft,

who was born in April 1926, lived at her home in Bogalusa, Louisiana until January

2022,   when she was moved into a nursing home by George, to whom she had

granted a general power of attorney in July 2015. Mrs. Craft' s speech and ability to

communicate were affected by a stroke she suffered in October 2016.                  The parties

disagreed on whether the stroke also affected Mrs. Craft' s mental health and

cognitive abilities.

        On August 16, 2018, Mrs.         Craft granted a power of attorney in favor of

Cheryl.   In addition to revoking George' s 2015 power of attorney, the August 2018

power of attorney included a provision stating it could " ONLY be amended or

revoked by Court order" in the best interest of Mrs. Craft. George filed a petition on

September 10, 2018, to annul Cheryl' s power of attorney and for injunctive relief.'

In the petition, George alleged Mrs. Craft lacked capacity to consent to Cheryl' s

power of attorney due to the stroke she had suffered and a decline in her mental

health resulting from Alzheimer' s disease.         Subsequently, on November 5, 2018,

Mrs. Craft granted. George a financial power of attorney and a health care power of

attorney ( collectively, the November 2018 powers of attorney).

        In a reconventional demand filed in March 2019, Cheryl sought a judgment

revoking George' s July 2015 power of attorney and upholding the validity of her

 Although Cheryl contends the trial court issued a temporary restraining order ( TRO) prohibiting
her from exercising the August 2018 power of attorney granted by Mrs. Craft, the appellate record
contains no evidence of such a TRO.

                                               2
August 2018 power of attorney. Additionally, on June 22, 2022, Cheryl filed an ex

parte motion to move Mrs.           Craft from the nursing home where she resided to

Cheryl' s residence in Tylertown, Mississippi. The motion also sought the dismissal

of George' s petition to annul Cheryl' s August 2018 power of attorney and for

injunctive relief, as well as the revocation of all powers of attorney granted to

George.

        Following a trial on September 8- 9, 2022, the trial court took the matter under

advisement.        The trial court rendered judgment on October 27, 2022,                  finding

George' s November 2018 powers of attorney were valid and revoking Cheryl' s

August 2018 power of attorney.              The trial court found there was insufficient

evidence to overcome the presumption that Mrs. Craft possessed capacity to grant

powers of attorney on both August 16 and November 5, 2018.                  Thus, the trial court

concluded the November 2018 powers of attorney granted to George revoked the

August 2018 power of attorney granted to Cheryl.                 The judgment was silent on

Cheryl' s motion to move Mrs. Craft from the nursing home to Cheryl' s residence

and, therefore, the motion must be considered rejected.2

        Cheryl has now appealed.'         She argues in eleven pro se assignments of error

that the trial court erred by: failing to find George judicially confessed Mrs. Craft' s

mental incapacity in November 2018: failing to find George was judicially estopped

from claiming Mrs. Craft had mental capacity to consent in November 2018; failing

2 When a judgment is silent regarding relief requested in the pleadings, the request is deemed to be
denied. Rand v. City ofNew Orleans, 17- 0596 ( La. 1216117), 235 So3d 1077, 1082.

3 On February 6, 2023, this court ex proprio motu ordered the parties to show cause by briefs
whether this appeal should be dismissed on the basis that the trial court' s October 27, 2022
judgment was a partial final judgment lacking the designation of finality required by La. C. C. P.
art. 1915( B).   The show cause order also remanded this matter to the trial court for the limited
purpose of inviting the trial court either to advise this court an Article 1915( B) designation was
not warranted or needed or to sign a judgment including an Article 1915( B) designation and
providing a per curiam explaining the reasons for its determination that a designation was
warranted.   Subsequently, the appellate record was supplemented with an amended judgment
signed by the trial court on February 27, 2023. In the amended judgment, the trial court stated all
issues had been adjudicated, the judgment was final, and there was no need for an Article 1915( B)
designation. Upon further review, the rule to show cause issued by this court is recalled, and this
appeal is maintained.

                                                 C
to find it was in Mrs. Craft' s best interest to be moved from the nursing home to

Cheryl' s residence; upholding the validity of George' s November 2018 powers of

attorney and revoking Cheryl' s August 2018 power of attorney; excluding an exhibit

Cheryl attempted to introduce; and issuing a TRO without requiring George to post

a bond.

                                   DISCUSSION

      The trial court concluded the November 2018 powers of attorney granted to

George were valid and revoked the earlier August 2018 power of attorney granted to

Cheryl based on its finding that the evidence was insufficient to overcome the

statutory presumption that Mrs. Craft possessed capacity to grant each of those

powers of attorney. Louisiana Civil Code article 1918 provides "[ a] ll persons have

capacity to contract, except unemancipated minors, interdicts, and persons deprived

of reason at the time of contracting."   Thus, capacity to contract is presumed, and

exceptions to the presumption of capacity must be convincingly established.

Hoskins v.    State Through Division of Administration, Of            of Community

Development, 18- 1089 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 2125119), 273 So. 3d 323, 329.

      In this case, George testified he was told by his mother' s physician that she

suffered from Alzheimer' s disease and dementia and should not make any life -

changing decisions. He attached to his petition an unverified letter purportedly from

the physician stating the same.      No medical evidence was presented at trial,

however, to substantiate this testimony. George further testified Mrs. Craft' s mental

health deteriorated to such an extent after her stroke that she was incapable of

making, comprehending, or communicating life c-hanging decisions or legal issues.

He acknowledged, however, that she could have rare lucid intervals and testified she

was experiencing such an episode when she executed the November 2018 powers of

attorney.   Conversely, Cheryl testified Mrs. Craft' s mental capacity did not change

after her stroke, despite the communication problems she experienced as a result of

                                          10
the stroke.   The trial court also heard testimony from other witnesses, none of whom

were     qualified   as   experts,   who testified Mrs. Craft had dementia,      as   well   as

testimony from other witnesses who had encounters with Mrs. Craft and found her
to be lucid and oriented to time and place.

         Considering the conflicting testimony and the absence of any medical

evidence indicating Mrs. Craft lacked mental capacity, we find no manifest error in

the trial court' s determination that the evidence was insufficient to overcome the

presumption that Mrs. Craft possessed capacity to execute the powers of attorney at

issue.     Accordingly, we also find no error in the trial court' s conclusion that

Cheryl' s August 2018 power of attorney was revoked by the subsequent November

2018 powers of attorney granted to George by Mrs. Craft.

         Cheryl argues that in finding Mrs. Craft possessed the mental capacity to

grant valid powers of attorney to George in November 2018, the trial court ignored

the allegations George made in his September 10,                2018 petition asserting Mrs.

Craft' s mental health had declined due to Alzheimer' s disease and that she was

incapable of consenting or making rational decisions at that time.          Cheryl contends

these allegations constituted a judicial confession by George that Mrs. Craft lacked

mental capacity to grant a power of attorney at any time after September 10, 2018,

including on November 5, 2018, when she granted powers of attorney to George.

She further contends these allegations judicially estopped George from claiming

Mrs.     Craft possessed mental capacity to grant the November 2018 powers of

attorney.

         We find no merit in these arguments. A judicial confession, which constitutes

full proof against the party who made it, is a declaration make in a judicial

proceeding acknowledging an adverse fact,           La. C. C. art. 1853; Cola v Cola, 19-

0530 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 12127119),         294 So. 3d 6, 11,    writ denied, 20- 00344 ( La.

613120), 296 So. 3d 1068.        In a strained interpretation of George' s petition, Cheryl

                                                5
seeks to have this court interpret the allegations therein as a judicial confession that

Mrs.   Craft lacked capacity at all times after George' s petition was filed on

September 10, 2018, but not before that date. In fact, the clear import of George' s

petition is that Mrs.     Craft lacked capacity when she executed the August 2018

power of attorney to Cheryl.

       Moreover, for a declaration to be considered a judicial confession, the adverse

party must have believed the relevant fact was no longer at issue or must have

detrimentally relied on the declaration. McCann v. Christus St. Frances Cabrini

Hospital, 16- 21 ( La. App. 3d Cir. 5111116), 192 So. 3d 868, 873- 74, writ denied, 16-

1111 ( La. 1112116), 213 So. 3d 390. The trial court concluded there was no evidence

Cheryl relied on George' s allegations to her detriment. Further, there is no question

the issue of Mrs. Craft' s mental capacity remained in dispute between the parties.

Thus, we find no error in the trial court' s determination that George' s allegations did

not constitute a judicial confession.'

       Additionally, we reject Cheryl' s assertion that, due to the allegations in

George' s petition that Mrs.       Craft was incapable of giving consent, George was

judicially estopped from arguing Mrs. Craft possessed capacity to grant the

November 2018 powers of attorney.                 Judicial estoppel prohibits parties from

deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment.                     The

requirements for judicial estoppel are: ( 1)         the party against whom judicial estoppel

is sought has asserted a legal position that is plainly inconsistent with a prior

position; (   2)   a court accepted the prior position; and ( 3)         the party did not act

inadvertently. Guilheau Marine, Inc. v. Ledet, 23- 0065 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 9/ 15123),

       So. 3d ,       2023 WL 5991576, at * 4.

 We note in the reconventional demand Cheryl filed in March 2019, she alleged Mrs. Craft was " a
competent major" who has never been diagnosed with Alzheimer' s disease or any other ailment
affecting her ability to make reasoned decisions or to direct her affairs. Therefore, if the
allegations in George' s petition could be construed as a judicial confession that Mrs. Craft lacked
capacity to consent in November 2018, the allegations in Cheryl' s reconventional demand
arguably could similarly be construed as a judicial confession of the opposite fact, i.e., that Mrs.
Craft possessed capacity to consent in November 2018.
                                                 6
       A review of the record reveals George' s position at trial was not " plainly

inconsistent" with his prior position.       At trial, he continued to maintain Mrs. Craft

generally lacked capacity to consent due to Alzheimer' s disease and dementia, but

acknowledged she could experience lucid intervals. He testified she executed the

November       2018   powers     of   attorney       during   one   of   these   lucid   intervals,

Additionally, the requirement of judicial acceptance of the prior position also was

not   established.    Cheryl argues the trial court accepted George' s prior position

regarding Mrs. Craft' s capacity when it issued injunctive relief prohibiting her from

exercising the power of attorney granted to her. Other than Cheryl' s allegations,

however, the record contains no evidence of what, if any, injunctive relief was

issued by the trial court.

        Cheryl also argues the trial court erred in failing to consider Mrs. Craft' s best

interest before revoking the August 2018 power of attorney.                  She points out the

August 2018 power of attorney contains a provision allowing revocation only by

court order and only if a revocation of the power of attorney is in Mrs. Craft' s best

interest.    Her argument that the trial court failed to comply with this provision is

apparently based on the fact that the trial court' s reasons for judgment quote the

portion of the provision requiring a court order for revocation, but fail to mention

the immediately following requirement that revocation must be in Mrs. Craft' s best

interest.'

       This reasoning is unpersuasive. Contrary to Cheryl' s arguments, we believe

the trial court' s partial quotation of the provision is an indication the court was fully

aware of the provision and cognizant of its requirements, even if the court did not

quote the provision in its entirety. Given the trial court' s obvious awareness of this

provision, we believe it is implicit in the trial court' s revocation of the August 2018

5 Section 9. 4 of the August 2018 power of attorney provides, in pertinent part: " This agency may
ONLY be amended or revoked by Court order in my [ Mrs. Craft] best interest ...."

                                                 7
power of attorney that the court found the revocation was in Mrs. Craft' s best

interest.

       The trial court heard testimony at trial concerning Mrs. Craft' s physical and

medical condition; the high level of care she required; George' s arrangements —past

and present —to provide for Mrs. Craft' s care,          financial needs, and other affairs; and

Cheryl' s plans to care for Mrs. Craft if she was moved to Cheryl' s residence. The

trial court also heard conflicting evidence concerning the quality -of c- are Mrs. Craft

received at the nursing home. Considering the evidence before the trial court, as

well as its credibility determinations, we find no manifest error in the trial court' s

implicit finding that it was in Mrs. Craft' s best interest for George to remain in

charge of her health care and other affairs and to revoke Cheryl' s August 2018

                      6
power of attorney.

                                          CONCLUSION

       For these reasons, the rule to show cause issued by this court is recalled, and

this appeal is maintained.         The trial court' s February 27, 2023 amended judgment is

affirmed.    Appellant, Cheryl Ogunbor, is to pay all costs of this appeal.

       RULE TO SHOW CAUSE RECALLED AND APPEAL MAINTAINED;
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

6 These same considerations apply equally to Cheryl' s argument that the trial court erred in
denying her motion to move Mrs. Craft from the nursing home to Cheryl' s residence.             We
likewise find no manifest error in the trial court' s obvious conclusion that it was not in the best
interest of Mrs. Craft, who was in declining health, to be moved from the nursing home where
round-the- clock care was available to Cheryl' s residence.

We also find no merit in Cheryl final arguments that the trial court erred. ( 1) in excluding on the
grounds of relevancy a video CD she sought to introduce at trial; and ( 2) in issuing without bond a
TRO and preliminary injunction prohibiting her from exercising the August 2018 power of
attorney. We note no proffer was made of the CD. Generally, a party who fails to make a proffer
cannot complain of the exclusion of the evidence. Haney v Lewis, 15- 1173 ( La, App. 1st Cir.
613116), 2016 WL 3127254, at * 7 ( unpublished), writs denied, 16- 1252 & 16- 1254 ( La. 10/ 28116),
208 So.3d 888- 89. Moreover, we agree with the trial court that the CD, which purported to show
verbal abuse of Mrs. Craft by her son, Larry Craft, who lived with her at the time, was not relevant
to the issues before the court since Mrs. Craft is now in a nursing home and no longer resides with
Larry. Nor are any issues properly before us relating to injunctive relief, since the judgment on
appeal did not issue injunctive relief to any party. To obtain review of any preliminary injunction
previously issued by the trial court, Cheryl was required to appeal that judgment within fifteen
days. La. C. C. P. art 3612( C).   Further, it appears any issue relating to a TRO would now be moot
since a TRO normally expires after ten days. La. C. C. P. art. 3604( A).