269 So. 3d 895
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Brittany and Nicole Boquet married Dec. 18, 2015; Nicole was pregnant and the child was born Feb. 5, 2016.
- Brittany was listed as a parent of the child (married to the birth mother) and the couple filed a joint 2016 tax return.
- Brittany filed for divorce on Mar. 14, 2017; Nicole answered and filed a reconventional demand for child support on Apr. 19, 2017.
- Brittany filed a petition for disavowal of the child on Apr. 28, 2017 (more than one year after the child’s birth).
- The trial court granted Nicole’s peremptory exception of prescription (time-bar), and Brittany appealed raising eight assignments of error including constitutional challenges and claims concerning La. Civ. Code arts. 185 and 189.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brittany) | Defendant's Argument (Nicole) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could base its decision on constitutional invalidation of La. Civ. Code arts. 185 and 189 without a party pleading the constitutional challenge and without AG notice | Trial court erred by relying on unpled constitutional invalidation and failing to notify the AG | Trial court’s stated constitutional reasoning was improper, but judgment can stand if correct on other grounds | Court: Constitutional ruling in reasons was procedurally improper, but judgment reviewed on proper ground (prescription) and affirmed |
| Whether art. 185/189 must be applied to give same marital "constellation of benefits" to a female spouse of a birth mother (equal-treatment issue) | Art. 185/189 should be interpreted so a female spouse does not have unequal treatment compared to male spouses; retroactive application arguments | Under Obergefell/Pavan principles, the marital presumption and prescription must be applied so same-sex spouses receive same benefits/obligations | Court: Applied Obergefell/Pavan principles to interpret arts. 185 and 189 to treat female spouse as equivalent; did not err in applying those principles |
| Whether the one-year liberative prescription for disavowal (La. Civ. Code art. 189) began at birth and barred Brittany’s claim | Brittany contends the statutes cannot be applied as written given post-Obergefell developments and challenges retroactive application | Nicole: Prescription began on child’s birth and Brittany filed after one year; petition is prescribed on its face | Court: Prescription began Feb. 5, 2016; disavowal filed Apr. 28, 2017 — prescribed on its face; Brittany failed to overcome the prescription |
| Whether the trial court usurped legislative authority by redrafting arts. 185/189 (separation of powers/retroactivity) | Court improperly re-wrote statutes and retroactively applied new interpretation, violating separation of powers and due process | Even if reasons discussed constitutionality, the judgment rests on prescription; court construed statutes consistent with Supreme Court precedents | Court: Declined to reach pure constitutional re-writing claims (not properly pleaded); nevertheless construed statutes consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedents and affirmed on prescription grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (same-sex marriage ruling establishing equal treatment in marriage-related benefits)
- Johnson v. Welsh, 334 So.2d 395 (La. 1976) (statutes are presumed constitutional and unconstitutionality must be specially pleaded)
- Bellard v. Am. Cent. Ins. Co., 980 So.2d 654 (La. 2008) (appellate courts review judgments, not a trial court’s reasons for judgment)
- Louisiana Federation of Teachers v. State, 118 So.3d 1033 (La. 2013) (courts should construe statutes to preserve constitutionality when reasonably possible)