Jenkins v. Jackson
216 So. 3d 1082
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Mark Jenkins, Sr. signed an acknowledgment of paternity (and his name appeared on the birth certificate) for a child born in 1997; he later sought to revoke that acknowledgment and to nullify prior rulings after genetic testing showed he was not the biological father.
- Jenkins filed multiple pleadings in the 24th JDC beginning in 2012 (revocation, damages, nullification, motions to alter the birth certificate) and the trial court ordered genetic testing, which showed he is not the biological father.
- This Court issued writ dispositions in 2013 and 2015 finding Jenkins’s action to revoke was prescribed under La. R.S. 9:406 and that Jenkins had judicially confessed signing an acknowledgment; the 2015 disposition became final after the Louisiana Supreme Court denied review.
- Jenkins then filed a petition to nullify the appellate writ dispositions, alleging lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, fraud/ill practices by opposing counsel, and that La. R.S. 9:406(B)(2) is unconstitutional.
- Jackson excepted (no cause of action and res judicata); the trial court sustained those exceptions and dismissed Jenkins’s nullification petition.
- On appeal this Court affirmed dismissal, holding Jenkins’s jurisdictional and fraud claims failed as a matter of law or were procedurally improper collateral attacks, but vacated the no-cause-of-action dismissal only as to the facial constitutionality claim (later treating that claim as precluded by res judicata).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction of appellate writs | Jenkins: appellate court lacked jurisdiction to decide legal paternity, so writ dispositions are null | Jackson: appellate court had supervisory jurisdiction; claim moot/untimely | Court: Jenkins’s jurisdiction claim fails—appellate court had jurisdiction; no cause of action |
| Fraud / ill practices to annul writs | Jenkins: opposing counsel misrepresented law and hid juvenile-court judicial confession; rulings obtained by fraud | Jackson: claim procedurally improper and moot; already considered on prior review | Court: collateral attack on appellate dispositions for fraud is procedurally defective; no cause of action |
| Constitutionality of La. R.S. 9:406(B)(2) | Jenkins: statute unconstitutional because it bars suspension/contra non valentum when fraud delays discovery | Jackson: claim precluded or moot given prior adjudications | Court: facial constitutional challenge initially states a cause of action (trial court erred to dismiss on that basis), but review of the substantive challenge is precluded by res judicata from final appellate disposition |
| Res judicata effect of prior writ dispositions | Jenkins: nullification raises different issues (e.g., existence of authentic act) not addressed previously | Jackson: 2013 and 2015 writs were final and disposed of the same causes of action; bars relitigation | Court: prior final appellate judgment is preclusive; nullification petition barred by res judicata; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Canal/Claiborne, Ltd. v. Stonehedge Dev., LLC, 156 So.3d 627 (La. 2014) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent)
- Guidry v. Hanover Ins. Co., 28 So.3d 426 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2009) (function and standard for peremptory exception of no cause of action)
- Fink v. Bryant, 801 So.2d 346 (La. 2001) (standard for dismissal on failure to state a cause of action)
- McLean v. Majestic Mortuary Servs., 96 So.3d 571 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2012) (elements and review standard for res judicata exception)
- Tolis v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, 660 So.2d 1206 (La. 1995) (finality and preclusive effect of appellate judgments)
- Poole v. Fuselier, 213 So.3d 18 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2016) (appellate writ dispositions that decide merits are final and preclusive)