261 So. 3d 959
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Ramos leased commercial premises from Le/La Rouge Properties and stored items in the rear during construction; Le told him he could not store items there but Ramos continued to do so.
- On three occasions between 2013 and 2015, Le or his agent entered the leased premises and removed items Ramos stored in the rear.
- Ramos filed suit pro se on May 25, 2017 alleging trespass/theft/fraud and related torts; the trial court required him to amend to specify dates of the incidents.
- Ramos amended to allege the first incident occurred ‘‘in 2013 between July and October’’ but failed to specify dates for the other two incidents; at the prescription hearing he testified the incidents occurred between 2013 and 2015.
- Defendants raised a peremptory exception of prescription; the trial court found Ramos’s claims prescribed on the face of the petition and that contra non valentem did not apply, and dismissed the suit.
- Ramos appealed; the appellate court affirmed, holding the one‑year liberative prescriptive period for delictual actions ran before his 2017 suit and he failed to show a recognized equitable interruption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims are prescribed on face of petition | Ramos: claims arose 2013–2015 but suit filed 2017; contention that prescription was interrupted | Defs: petition shows damage occurred by 2015, so one‑year prescription expired before 2017 filing | Held: Claims prescribed on face; suit untimely. |
| Whether contra non valentem interrupts prescription | Ramos: Le’s statement he had landlord authority lulled Ramos into inaction until 2016, so doctrine should apply | Defs: Le’s statement was at most an incorrect belief, not concealment or intentional misrepresentation | Held: Contra non valentem not shown; plaintiff conceded landlord was sincerely mistaken, not fraudulent. |
| Characterization of cause of action (affecting prescriptive period) | Ramos: pleaded trespass/theft/fraud and related injuries; ambiguous pleading | Defs: Delictual nature subjects claims to one‑year liberative prescription | Held: Court construed pro se pleading liberally but treated claims as delictual; one‑year prescriptive period applies. |
| Adequacy of amended petition after trial court order | Ramos: attempted to comply by alleging approximate date for one incident | Defs: Failure to specify dates left claims time‑barred on face of petition | Held: Even crediting testimony, all incidents occurred by 2015; suit filed 2017—prescription not avoided. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ames v. Ohle, 97 So.3d 386 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2012) (standard of review and burden rules for peremptory exception of prescription)
- Albe v. City of New Orleans, 150 So.3d 361 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2014) (character of action controls applicable prescriptive period)
- Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 16 So.3d 1065 (La. 2009) (review standard and prescriptive statutes construed in favor of claim)
- Corsey v. State, Through Dep’t of Corr., 375 So.2d 1319 (La. 1979) (origin and scope of contra non valentem doctrine)
- Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 48 So.3d 234 (La. 2010) (enumeration of contra non valentem categories)
- Rajnowski v. St. Patrick’s Hosp., 564 So.2d 671 (La. 1990) (misstatements do not equal fraud for contra non valentem without intent)
- Prevo v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr., 187 So.3d 395 (La. 2015) (incorrect but sincere legal statements do not invoke contra non valentem)