206 So. 3d 1088
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Decedent Milton Younger died intestate on February 5, 2015; he was survived by two children from a prior marriage (Mitchell and Tewana Younger) and an alleged illegitimate daughter, Nakita Moore Tellis.
- Tellis filed a petition to establish filiation and to be appointed administratrix of the succession on March 31, 2015 (she was born May 19, 1979).
- The Younger siblings opposed, asserting Tellis’s filiation claim was barred by the former peremptive deadline (file within 19 years of the child’s birth), which Tellis missed (her 19th birthday was May 19, 1998).
- The trial court sustained exceptions of prescription and peremption and dismissed Tellis’s filiation petition; Tellis appealed.
- La. C.C. art. 209 (former law) required filiation actions within 19 years of birth or one year after the alleged parent’s death, whichever came first; Acts 2005 No. 192 replaced Article 209 with La. C.C. art. 197, effective June 29, 2005, which provides a one-year peremptive period from the alleged father’s death for succession purposes.
- The court considered whether Article 197’s one-year succession limitation applies retroactively to revive Tellis’s claim filed within one year of the decedent’s 2015 death despite her having missed the 19-year deadline under former Article 209.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tellis) | Defendant's Argument (Youngers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether La. C.C. art. 197’s one-year succession peremptive period governs a filiation claim where the child turned 19 before Art.197’s enactment | Art.197 applies because it was the law in effect at the decedent’s death and allows a child to bring a succession filiation claim within one year of the father’s death | Former Art.209’s 19-year-from-birth peremptive period had already perempted Tellis’s claim; Art.197 should not revive a claim already perempted | The court held Art.197 governs succession filiation claims at the time of the decedent’s death and applies to Tellis’s claim filed within one year of death; reversal and remand |
| Whether applying Art.197 to revive a previously perempted claim violates vested-rights/retroactivity principles | Art.197’s succession-limited one-year rule reflects the legislature’s intent and must be read with Art.870 (successions are governed by law effective at decedent’s death), so it may revive claims for succession purposes | Once a right to plead peremption existed under prior law, a later statute cannot retroactively revive it absent clear legislative intent | The court found the text of Art.197 and Art.870 show the legislature intended the one-year succession rule to govern successions at decedent’s death; therefore Art.197 applies in this succession and does not improperly revive extinguished rights beyond the succession context |
Key Cases Cited
- Succession of Grice, 462 So.2d 131 (La. 1985) (treated the former Article 209 peremptive period as peremptive in filiation suits)
- Succession of Harrison, 129 So.3d 681 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2013) (applied La. C.C. art. 197’s one-year succession rule where claim was brought within one year of death)
- Chance v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 635 So.2d 177 (La. 1994) (statutes generally cannot be applied retroactively to revive prescribed claims absent clear legislative intent)
- Lowe v. Home Owners’ Loan Corp., 6 So.2d 726 (La. 1942) (Civil Code provisions must be read as an integrated system and harmonized with general purpose)