106 So. 3d 557
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Thomas filed a July 28, 2011 petition to establish filiation claiming Roberts was his father; he was 43 at filing.
- Roberts challenged the petition with exceptions of prescription and no right of action, asserting Thomas’s claim was prescribed.
- Thomas alleged art. 209 (old law) prescribed; argued art. 197 (2005) created no prescriptive period for filiation except succession, reviving his claim.
- Trial court sustained both exceptions, rendering judgment for Roberts.
- Court recognizes former art. 209 perempted; art. 197 cannot retroactively revive an extinguished, nonexistent claim.
- Thomas’s claim arose when he turned 19 and was perempted thereafter; retroactive application of art. 197 would violate vested rights and is not implied by the revision comments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether art. 197 revives an extinguished filiation claim. | Thomas: art. 197 has no prescriptive period for filiation; retroactive revival allowed. | Roberts: under former art. 209 peremption occurred in 1987; art. 197 cannot revive extinguished claims. | affirmed; art. 197 cannot revive extinguished/perempted claim. |
| Whether Thomas has a right of action against Roberts after peremption under former law. | Thomas asserts he belongs to a class permitted to sue. | Roberts contends the peremption of 1987 bars action. | affirmed; no right of action due to peremption. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Succession of James, 994 So.2d 120 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2008) (peremption under former art. 209; revival not allowed without clear retroactive intent)
- Matheme v. Broussard, 959 So.2d 975 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2007) (analysis of peremption and legacy prescriptive periods)
- Succession of Faget, 938 So.2d 1003 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2006) (discussion of the transition from art. 209 to art. 197)
- In re Succession of McKay, 921 So.2d 1219 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 2006) (comparative treatment of revived claims under new law)
- Jeanmarie v. Butler, 942 So.2d 578 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2006) (illustrative on retroactivity considerations in succession-related claims)