318 So.3d 1094
La. Ct. App.2021Background
- Paul K. Wabnig died in 1959; his will left his estate equally to his three children and granted Gertrude (the mother) a usufruct; judgment of possession entered in 1960.
- Gertrude died in 2010; her succession remains pending.
- In October 2019 Margarete Wabnig sued the Estate of Gertrude, and brothers Norbert and Paul, alleging they concealed Margarete’s legitime from their father’s estate, made inter vivos donations and conversions, and breached fiduciary duties; she sought monetary damages.
- Defendants filed exceptions of prescription; the trial court sustained prescription and dismissed the claims in June 2020.
- On appeal Margarete argued (1) her pleadings stated an imprescriptible revendicatory action and (2) contra non valentem tolled prescription because the defendants concealed the legacy; defendants sought frivolous-appeal damages.
- The court affirmed: the petition sought only monetary damages (not revendication of specific things), found evidence Margarete knew of her legacy by 2007–2008 (so claims prescribed), and denied frivolous-appeal damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition alleges an imprescriptible revendicatory action | Wabnig: the action is in revendication for her legacy and thus imprescriptible | Defendants: petition seeks only monetary damages, not recovery of specific property | Held: Petition seeks money only; not a revendicatory action, so prescription applies |
| Whether contra non valentem tolls prescription for concealment | Wabnig: defendants concealed the legacy; she only learned in 2018, so tolling applies | Defendants: evidence shows she knew by 2007–2008; no tolling | Held: Trial court’s factual finding that she had knowledge by 2007–2008 is not manifestly erroneous; contra non valentem does not save the claims |
| Whether the appeal is frivolous (request for damages) | N/A (appellant) | Defendants: appeal is frivolous and seeks attorney’s fees/costs | Held: Appeal not unquestionably frivolous; frivolous-appeal damages denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Wells Fargo Fin. Louisiana, Inc. v. Galloway, 231 So.3d 793 (standard of review and burden when claim is prescribed on its face)
- Melancon v. Melancon, 244 So.2d 905 (revendicatory action requires recovery of specific, identifiable property; monetary claim is not revendication)
- Ramos v. Le, 261 So.3d 959 (explaining the four narrow categories of contra non valentem tolling)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 986 So.2d 797 (standards for awarding frivolous-appeal damages)
- Miralda v. Gonzalez, 160 So.3d 998 (frivolous-appeal test: must be taken solely for delay or lack serious belief in law)