140 So. 3d 318
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Frances Carr Scurlock died in 1990; will left Tom 25% of certain Kenner property.
- Probate and possession judgments issued 1991, with amendments in 1994 and 2005.
- Tom filed a Petition to Reopen Succession in 2012 arguing forced heir rights and liquidation of his legitime.
- Executrix Patricia Scurlock and others filed exceptions of prescription and no cause of action.
- Trial court granted prescription, dismissed Tom’s petition, and denied new-trial relief; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prescription bars reopening the succession | Scurlock alleged contra non valentum suspends prescription | Prescription ran five years from probate; no exception applies | Prescription bars reopening |
| Whether contra non valentum applies to suspend prescription here | Tom was absent/disabled; unaware of proceedings; fraud alleged | No applicable exception; record shows no sufficient concealment | Contra non valentum does not apply |
| Whether petition to reopen is actually for reduction of an excessive donation | Requests amendment to recognize forced-heir rights and deliver legitime | Action is for reduction of excessive donation, subject to 5-year period | Action treated as reduction of an excessive donation |
| Whether five-year prescriptive period for reduction applies from probate | Discovered rights late; period should be suspended | Five-year clock started at probate; timely suspension not shown | Five-year prescriptive period applies; claims prescribed |
| Whether exclusion of proffered testimony affected outcome | Testimony relevant to proper cause to reopen | Record undisputed; exclusion harmless | No reversible error; exclusion harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Kilpatrick v. Kilpatrick, 625 So.2d 222 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1993) (five-year prescriptive period governs reduction of excessive donation)
- West v. Gajdzik, 425 So.2d 263 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1982) (recognizes prescriptive accrual for reductions of donations)
- In re: Succession of Ferguson, 114 So.3d 1260 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2013) (contra non valentum exception framework)
- Wells v. Zadeck, 89 So.3d 1145 (La.Sup.Ct. 2012) (constructive knowledge suffices for contra non valentum)
- Caro v. Bradford White Corp., 678 So.2d 615 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1996) (definition and application of contra non valentum factors)