Marcus Miller v. Harold Thibeaux,lafayette Parish School Board and American Alternative Insurance Corporation
2015 La. LEXIS 16
La.2015Background
- Six-year-old La’Derion Miller was fatally injured when a school bus door trapped his arm; he died March 14, 2011.
- Marcus Miller (plaintiff) filed wrongful death and survival claims within one year, alleging he was La’Derion’s biological father and seeking damages individually and on behalf of the estate.
- Defendants raised peremptory exceptions of no right of action, arguing plaintiff had not timely or sufficiently pleaded filiation as required by LSA-C.C. art. 198.
- District court granted plaintiff’s motion for judgment of paternity and denied defendants’ exceptions; appellate court reversed, holding the petition’s bare allegation of paternity was insufficient and dismissed the suit.
- Louisiana Supreme Court granted review, applied Udomeh v. Joseph principles, reversed the appellate court, reinstated the district court denial of exceptions, and remanded for consideration of post-trial appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a putative father’s bare allegation of biological paternity in a wrongful-death petition constitutes an avowal (filiation) action | Miller: Alleging biological paternity in the wrongful-death petition gives defendants fair notice and suffices to institute filiation under Udomeh | Defendants: A bare allegation is conclusory; Article 198 requires timely institution of an avowal action with sufficient factual pleading beyond a mere claim of biology | Held: Bare allegation of biological paternity in the wrongful-death petition is sufficient to state an avowal action and confer right to sue; appellate reversal was erroneous |
| Whether failure to specifically pray for paternity relief bars a court from granting paternity judgment | Miller: Specific prayer not required; Article 862 allows relief based on facts pled | Defendants: Plaintiff did not properly institute a filiation action | Held: Court may grant paternity judgment based on facts pled even absent explicit request, if defendants had notice |
| Whether prior jurisprudence requiring demonstration of an actual relationship precludes relief under current codal peremptive regime | Miller: Prior cases applied pre-2004 standards; codal Article 198 controls now | Defendants: Cite pre-Act cases stressing actual relationship and timeliness | Held: Prior jurisprudence is superseded by Article 198; peremptive limits govern and notice/factual pleading suffices when timely filed |
| Procedural consequence for damages judgment after appellate dismissal | Miller: Requests review of damages he contends were low | Defendants: Appellate dismissal rendered trial judgment moot | Held: Supreme Court reversed appellate dismissal, reinstated district rulings; remanded for appellate consideration of post-trial appeals on damages (merits review deferred to appellate courts) |
Key Cases Cited
- Udomeh v. Joseph, 103 So.3d 343 (La. 2012) (held that pleading biological paternity in a timely personal-injury/wrongful-death petition can constitute an avowal action and provide adequate notice)
- Reese v. State Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 866 So.2d 244 (La. 2004) (affirmed that bare allegations in initial petition can give defendants notice that filiation is at issue)
- W.R.M. v. H.C.V., 951 So.2d 172 (La. 2007) (discusses effect of statutory changes on timeliness and prior jurisprudential standards for avowal actions)
- Smith v. Cole, 553 So.2d 847 (La. 1989) (example of pre-codification jurisprudence emphasizing actual relationship in reasonable-timeliness analysis)