The Interdiction of Jeanne Rateau Yazbeck
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CA 1436 INTERDICTION OF JEANNE RATEAU YAZBECK Judgment rendered MAR 2 6 2010 r I The TwentySecond Judicial District Court Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana Docket Number 2008 11270 Division E The Honorable William J Burris Judge Presiding Sam J Collett Jr Counsel forPlaintiffsAppellees Bailey Dirmann Morse Covington LA Susan Cannizaro Jeanne Marie Prescott L Barfield Counsel for DefendantAppellant Covington LA Jeanne Rateau Yazbeck Paysse and Oscar A Paysse III BEFORE DOWNING GAIDRY AND MCCLENDON JJ DOWNING J Jeanne Rateau Yazbeck appeals a judgment that fully interdicted her We affirm the judgment Ms Yazbeck children filed a petition for temporary preliminary and s permanent interdiction alleging that Ms Yazbeck was 76 years old was suffering from dementia with behavioral disturbances and was incapable of caring for her person or her property interdictions The trial court granted the temporary and preliminary The matter subsequently came on for trial on the merits of Ms s Yazbeck permanent interdiction The trial court ordered that Ms Yazbeck be fully interdicted as defined in La C art 389 Ms Yazbeck now appeals asserting five assignments of error summarized as follows 1 The trial court erred in finding that Ms Yazbeck was unable to manage her personal affairs 2 The trial court erred in finding that Ms Yazbeck was unable to manage her financial affairs 3 The trial court erred in determining that a full interdiction was required rather than a limited interdiction 4 The trial court erred in determining that the most appropriate and least restrictive placement for Ms Yazbeck was in a secure ward of an assisted living facility 5 The trial court erred in giving greater weight to the opinion of one doctor over the opinion of another expert DISCUSSION A petitioner must prove his case by clear and convincing evidence in an interdiction proceeding La C art 4548 Since the determination of whether P to order interdiction is a finding of fact appellate courts will not set aside a trial Louisiana Civil Code art 389 provides as follows A court may order the full interdiction of a natural person of tite age of majority or an emancipated minor who due to an infirmity is unable consistently to make reasoned decisions regarding the care of his person and property or to communicate those decisions and whose interests cannot be protected by less restrictive means 2 s court finding in the absence of a clearly wrong determination State ex rel Smith 38 p 5 La 2 Cir 3 867 So 890 894 In her first three 192 App 04 2d assignments of error Ms Yazbeck essentially urges that the trial court was clearly wrong in determining that she is unable to manage her personal and financial affairs and that she needs full interdiction The record however supports the trial court findings including an expert s psychiatric evaluation evidence of her diminished mental acuity and evidence that she needs supervision to prevent harm to herself or others particularly her proclivity toward automobile accidents if given the opportunity to drive The trial s court findings therefore are supported by the record and are not clearly wrong We find no merit in Ms Yazbeck first second and third assignments of error s In her fifth assignment of error Ms Yazbeck argues that the trial court erred in accepting the opinion of a psychiatrist who evaluated her when she was admitted to a hospital over that of the licensed clinical neuropsychologist who performed a more contemporaneous and more thorough evaluation Where there are two permissible views of the evidence however the factfinder choice between them s cannot be clearly wrong Stobart v State through Dep tof Transp 2d So 880 883 La 1993 Dev 617 Accordingly the factfinder decision to accept the s reasonable opinions and testimony of one expert over the conflicting opinions and testimony of another expert can never be clearly wrong See Fontenette v McDermott Inc 95 0190 pp 5 6 La I Cir 10 694 So 266 270 App 95 6 2d While we may have weighed the testimony of the experts differently we cannot say the trial court was clearly wrong The fifth assignment of error lacks merit In her fourth assignment of error Ms Yazbeck challenges the trial court s oral finding that the most appropriate and least restrictive placement for her is in a secure ward of an assisted living facility contains no such finding or order We note however that the judgment The law does not require a judgment of Rl interdiction to make such a finding or order See La P C art 4551 Accordingly we find no merit in this assignment of error DECREE For the foregoing reasons we affirm the judgment of the trial court Costs of this appeal are to be paid by Ms Jeanne Rateau Yazbeck curator Ms Susan P s Cannizaro out of Ms Yazbeck funds under her control s AFFIRMED Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure art 4566 applicable to temporary interdictions provides as to Iows 1 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 No similar provision currently appears in the Code of Civil Procedure addressing preliminary or permanent interdictions Former La C art 4555 repealed by La Acts 2000 1 Ex No 25 P Sess 3 eff July 1 2001 provided that If necessary the court may order That an interdict be confined in safe custody Instead La Cart 4566 now provides generally that the relationship between interdict and curator P A is the same as that bctwocn minor and tutor Ail 4566 governs the management of the affairs of an interdict We also observe that the trial court has a continuing duty to monitor the status of an interdicted person La C art P 4569 STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CA 1436 INTERDICTION OF JEANNE RATEAU YAZBECK McCLENDON J concurs and assigns reasons I concur to emphasize that Louisiana Civil Code article 389 only allows a full interdiction in those cases where less restrictive means are not available Thus serious deliberation is required before ordering a full interdiction In this matter the trial court found that less restrictive means were not available I am unable to say that the trial court lacked any reasonable basis for this finding Therefore I respectfully concur
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
