Update on the Court Hearing Regarding Marie Couvent’s Legacy
This past Friday, I had the opportunity to present my case in court regarding the quiet title deed decision involving Marie Couvent’s historic property at 1941 Dauphine Street. While the judge acknowledged the validity of my position, she stated that she does not have jurisdiction to override the decision made by the Civil District Court. Despite this, I believe it is essential to continue advocating for justice and transparency to honor Marie Couvent’s legacy.
Here is what I requested of the court during the hearing:
Investigate Donor-Imposed Restrictions: I urged the court to examine whether the quiet title judgment adequately addressed the donor-imposed restrictions outlined in Marie Couvent’s bequest. These restrictions explicitly mandate that the property be used for charitable purposes and prohibit its sale.
Demand Documentation: I requested that the Archdiocese be required to produce documentation detailing the evaluation process for offers received on the property. This includes explanations for dismissing mission-aligned proposals, such as the comprehensive vision I submitted.
Impose Equitable Conditions: I asked the court to ensure that proceeds from the sale of the property are directed toward community benefits consistent with the charitable legacy of Marie Couvent’s bequest.
During the hearing, I also highlighted several critical points:
Marie Couvent’s Donor Intent: Her bequest explicitly prohibited the sale of the property and mandated its use for charitable purposes. While the Archdiocese asserts that the quiet title judgment extinguished these restrictions, there is no sufficient evidence that her intent was fully evaluated or preserved. Furthermore, stakeholders, including myself, were not afforded any transparency during this process.
Dismissal of My Proposal: My detailed 100-page proposal, which reimagined the property as a co-working and community development space, was dismissed without meaningful engagement or the opportunity to present financials. This raises serious concerns about whether the Archdiocese fulfilled its fiduciary duty to evaluate all viable alternatives.
Public Assurances in 2019: The Archdiocese publicly stated that clearing the title would allow the property to be used for ministry or other community-serving purposes. However, their decision to place the property on the market for liquidation—to pay abuse claims—contradicts these assurances. Selling the property to a private developer without conditions erodes trust within the community and undermines the property’s charitable mission.
What Comes Next?
The next step is for me to consider filing legal action against the Archdiocese for their actions in the civil case that cleared the deed. While this decision is not one I take lightly, it may be necessary to ensure that Marie Couvent’s legacy—and her commitment to uplifting the underserved—is preserved.
This is not just about property; it is about honoring a visionary woman who sought to make a lasting impact on her community. Marie Couvent’s story deserves to be remembered and her mission upheld.
I will keep you updated on my next steps as I weigh all available options. In the meantime, I want to thank everyone who has supported me in this journey. Your encouragement strengthens my resolve to see this fight through to the end.
Best,
Kim