CT: Conservators Can Pursue Divorces on Behalf of Wards

Perhaps no other lawsuit is as deeply personal to the parties as a dissolution of marriage. What happens, then, when one party lacks the capacity to independently pursue legal action? How can that person avail himself or herself of a divorce?

The Connecticut Appellate Court recently answered that question in the case of Luster v. Luster, 128 Conn.App. 259 (2011). In Luster, the Appellate Court held that involuntary conservators of a party could bring a divorce action on behalf of their incompetent ward.

Mr. Luster had been found by the Probate Court to suffer from senile dementia and to be incapable of caring for himself. His children were appointed as permanent conservators of his person and estate. Mr. Luster did not voluntarily consent to this representation.

Mrs. Luster filed for legal separation, and Mr. Luster’s conservators responded with a cross-complaint for divorce, which they subsequently sought to amend to include a charge of intolerable cruelty. This cross-complaint effectively converted the action from one for legal separation to a dissolution of marriage. Also, the cross-complaint gave Mr. Luster an independent right to continue the court action; without it, Mrs. Luster could have brought the matter to a conclusion simply by withdrawing her complaint.

Mrs. Luster’s counsel challenged the ability of the conservators to file such a cross-complaint on his behalf. Mrs. Luster’s position was that for conservators to do so exceeded their statutory authority. She also raised a public policy concern that to allow conservators this authority would enable them to dissolve another person’s marriage for their own financial gain or personal animosity. These challenges had prevailed at the trial level. The trial judge granted a motion to dismiss the conservators’ cross-complaint on behalf of their ward.

The Appellate Court found that Mr. Luster’s conservators were not prohibited from helming Mr. Luster’s divorce proceedings. The Appellate Court dutifully examined the role of conservators and their statutory authority. Ultimately the judges were guided by another principle: a person’s right of access to the courts. It has long been a holding of the Connecticut courts that even one who was “insane” or otherwise “incompetent” retains “a legal capacity to sue or be sued.” Ridgeway v. Ridgeway, 180 Conn. 533, 539 (1980).

Of course, those who are not competent may have a guardian ad litem appointed for them in the case. If the person has been formally adjudicated incompetent, a representative for court becomes required. Conserved persons cannot bring an action in their own right, but must depend on their conservators to do so. The Appellate Court ultimately considered that a conservator’s authority and responsibility to protect the interests of the ward, and the general history of conservators bringing suit on behalf of their wards, required that the trial judgment be reversed and that the cross-complaint filed by Mr. Luster’s conservators should stand.

Protecting Dignity
Judge David M. Borden’s concurrence with the majority opinion in Luster brings out a stirring point. Mrs. Luster’s public policy concern, although overruled, holds some weight: there are certainly conservators who would exploit the position for their own gain, without proper regard to their wards’ interests. But a conserved person would have legal recourse against his or her conservators if necessary.

On the other hand, Judge Borden reasoned, what if the conserved person is the victim of their spouse’s bad behavior? (Note the charge of intolerable cruelty added in Luster.) If an incompetent spouse cannot pursue divorce through a conservator, that spouse becomes deprived of access to the court system for relief and is trapped in an abusive relationship with no way out.

Full Article and Source:
Conservators Can Pursue Divorces on Behalf of Wards