82 So. 3d 322
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Decedent Elliot L. Bailey died April 7, 2009, leaving multiple children alleging paternity (Lenair and Michelle as legitimate children; Rhonda, Treniece, Elliot, Ryan, and D’Juan also claim Decedent as father).
- Appellees filed an Expedited Petition for Eviction and related relief on April 16, 2009, followed by Appellants' Petition for Possession with Administration on July 24, 2009.
- Appellants filed a Petition to Establish Paternity on April 1, 2010; Appellees answered with a Peremptory Exception of Prescription on September 29, 2010.
- Trial court held the prescription exception was valid and dismissed the petition; denial of new trial was affirmed on December 7, 2010.
- Appellants appeal raising (1) whether Article 4 requires equity to fill a gap between repeal of Article 209 and enactment of Article 197 for those over 19; (2) whether equitable estoppel precludes prescription; (3) whether denial of a new trial was proper; (4) whether Article 209 is unconstitutional in light of DNA technology.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gap between repeal of Art. 209 and enactment of Art. 197 | Appellants claim a statutory gap; equity should apply | There is no gap; Art. 209 preempted filiation rights | No gap; Art. 209 preemption applies; equity not needed |
| Equitable estoppel to defeat prescription | Decedent’s actions show reliance and detriment, supporting estoppel | Equitable estoppel cannot override positive law | Equitable estoppel not applicable; Article 209 controls |
| Constitutionality of Art. 209 | Repeal renders Art. 209 unconstitutional due to DNA advances | Unconstitutional challenge not properly raised in court; Grice controls; no change in law | Unconstitutionality not properly raised; even if raised, Grice controls; not merited |
| Denial of Motion for New Trial | Trial court abused discretion by not applying equity | Judgment on merits; factual/legal basis supported by law | Not explicitly stated as separate issue; affirmance of judgment on merits maintained |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Succession of Donald Clay Smith, 29 So.3d 723 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2010) (preemptive effect of Article 209 on prospective filiation claims)
- In re Succession of James, 994 So.2d 120 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2008) (articulates preemption by 209 when age threshold reached)
- M.J. Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 956 So.2d 573 (La. 2007) (pleading unconstitutionality must be raised in trial court; statutory challenges follow proper pleading)
- Succession of Grice, 462 So.2d 131 (La. 1985) (compelling state interest for Article 209 justification)
- Vallo v. Gayle Oil Co., Inc., 646 So.2d 859 (La. 1994) (unconstitutionality challenges must be pleaded and particularized)
- Smith v. Smith, 31 So.3d 453 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2010) (appeal of denial of new trial treated as merits appeal)
- Punctual Abstract Co. Inc. v. U.S. Land Title, 28 So.3d 459 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2009) (pleading/procedure guidance for appellate review)