244 So. 3d 476
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Decedent William D. Pelt died intestate April 18, 2016; his siblings (Appellees) opened succession and named an administratrix.
- Kristina Wright, born 1973, intervened claiming she was Pelt's natural daughter, sought filiation, forced‑heir status, removal of administratrix, and paternity testing.
- Appellees filed an exception of prescription; trial court granted it and dismissed Kristina's petition; she appealed.
- Central legal question: whether La. Civ. Code art. 197 (2005) — which permits a child to prove paternity after the alleged father’s death within one year for succession purposes — applies to revive or govern filiation claims when the claimant turned 19 before the 2005 enactment but the alleged father died after 2005.
- The court examined interaction between art. 197 and La. Civ. Code art. 870(B) (succession rights governed by law in effect at decedent's death) and concluded art. 197 governs succession filiation claims when the decedent died after the act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of La. Civ. Code art. 197 for succession filiation claims | Kristina: art. 197 applies to claims existing at decedent's death and thus governs successions when decedent died after 2005 | Appellees: prior art. 209 perempted claims when claimant turned 19; art. 197 should not revive prescribed claims | Held: art. 197 governs succession filiation claims when decedent died after its enactment (guided by art. 870(B)); Kristina's claim timely within one year of death |
| Whether heirs acquired vested right to plead prescription before decedent's death | Kristina: heirs had no vested succession interest before death and thus could not claim prescription pre‑death | Appellees: claimant's rights extinguished at 19 under former art. 209, giving heirs right to plead prescription | Held: heirs had no vested succession right pre‑death; art. 197’s one‑year succession rule applies and does not improperly revive an already vested right of heirs |
| Proper construction of statutory language applying the 2005 Act to "claims existing or actions pending" | Kristina: read with art. 870(B) and art.197 comment (e), the Act was meant to eliminate the 19‑year bar except for succession where one year runs from death | Appellees: identical language elsewhere does not clearly indicate revival of prescribed claims; earlier panels so held | Held: when read with art. 870(B) and legislative comments, art.197’s succession clause controls for successions and is applied as law at decedent's death |
| Whether dismissal on exception of prescription was legally correct | Kristina: dismissal was incorrect because her succession filiation claim fell within art.197’s one‑year period | Appellees: trial court correctly dismissed under prior jurisprudence | Held: trial court erred; dismissal reversed and case remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Succession of Smith, 29 So.3d 723 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2010) (held art.197 did not revive already perempted filiation claims)
- In re Succession of McKay, 921 So.2d 1219 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2006) (similar holding on nonretroactivity of art.197)
- In re Succession of James, 994 So.2d 120 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2008) (applied former art.209 when art.197 not clearly retroactive)
- Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc. v. Kennedy, 914 So.2d 533 (La. 2005) (interpreted identical statutory language as expressing retroactive intent)
- Morial v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 785 So.2d 1 (La. 2001) (same on legislative language indicating retroactivity)
- Chance v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 635 So.2d 177 (La. 1994) (statute cannot be retroactively applied to revive prescribed claims absent clear legislative intent)
- W.R.M. v. H.C.V., 951 So.2d 172 (La. 2007) (definition and limits of vested rights)
- Bourgeois v. A.P. Green Indus., Inc., 783 So.2d 1251 (La. 2001) (cause of action accrues when the right to sue exists)