382 So.3d 38
La.2024Background
- Plaintiffs, including Douglas Bienvenu, alleged they were sexually abused as minors by a Catholic priest between 1971 and 1979.
- The alleged abuse occurred when plaintiffs were ages 8 to 14; the claims were time-barred under the previous one-year prescription period for delictual actions.
- The Louisiana legislature amended La. R.S. 9:2800.9 in 2021 and 2022 (Acts 322 and 386), reviving prescribed child sex abuse claims for a three-year window.
- Defendants argued that these legislative provisions unconstitutionally impaired their "vested right" in claiming prescription as a defense.
- The trial court ruled the revival constitutional and denied the defendants' exception of prescription; the court of appeal denied review; the Supreme Court granted review limited to constitutionality.
- The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding the revival unconstitutional, but remanded for determination whether prescription was suspended under contra non valentem (a doctrine for tolling).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of Reviving Prescribed Claims | Legislature may revive prescribed claims for compelling public purpose, especially for child sex abuse | Reviving prescribed claims violates vested property rights & due process under Louisiana Constitution | Revival of prescribed claims violates due process by divesting vested rights |
| Legislative Intent to Apply Retroactively | Statute clearly expresses retroactive application to revive old claims | Not disputed | Affirmed: statute is expressly retroactive |
| Nature of the Right to Plead Prescription | Defense is not so paramount as to outweigh public interest; due process analysis should weigh rational basis | Prescription is a vested property right once accrued, protected against retroactive divestment | Prescription is a vested right that cannot be retroactively divested |
| Potential Applicability of Contra Non Valentem | Doctrine may suspend prescription due to equitable reasons (e.g., abuse concealed) | Not disputed if doctrine applies, claims may be timely | Remanded: trial court to consider whether suspension applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Cole v. Celotex Corp., 599 So.2d 1058 (La. 1992) (sets standard for retroactivity and vested rights)
- Elevating Boats, Inc. v. St. Bernard Par., 795 So.2d 1153 (La. 2001) (legislature cannot revive prescribed claims as it divests accrued rights)
- Borel v. Young, 989 So.2d 42 (La. 2007) (distinguishing prescription from peremption; prescription as a bar to enforcement)
- Falgout v. Dealers Truck Equip. Co., 748 So.2d 399 (La. 1999) (accrued prescription is a vested right protected by due process)
- Burmaster v. Plaquemines Par. Gov't, 982 So.2d 795 (La. 2008) (retroactive legislation cannot divest vested rights without due process)
- M.J. Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 998 So.2d 16 (La. 2008) (legislature’s power limited by constitutional protections for vested rights)
- State v. All Prop. and Cas. Ins. Carriers, 937 So.2d 313 (La. 2006) (addressing due process and prescriptive periods, but distinguished here)