W.R.M. v. H.C.V.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

W.R.M. v. H.C.V.

951 So. 2d 172, 2007 La. LEXIS 522

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 9, 2007

DocketNo. 2006-CA-0702

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 951 So. 2d 172 (W.R.M. v. H.C.V.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

W.R.M. v. H.C.V., 951 So. 2d 172, 2007 La. LEXIS 522 (La. 2007).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

JjOn July 7, 2003, W.R.M. filed a “Petition to Establish Filiation” against H.C.V. and M.J.V., alleging that he is the biological father of A.M.V as a result of an adulterous affair between H.C.V. and W.R.M. In response, H.C.V. and M.J.V. filed exceptions of no cause of action, no right of action, and prescription. While these exceptions were pending, the Louisiana Legislature passed Act 530 of 2004, which enacted La. Civ.Code art. 191. H.C.V. and M.J.V. filed supplemental exceptions based on the application of La. Civ.Code art. 191, arguing that W.R.M. failed to comply with the two-year peremptive period set forth in the article and thus he had no right or cause of action to continue his avowal action.

The district court granted the exceptions of no right of action, no cause of action, and prescription. W.R.M. appealed the judgment to the court of appeal. The court of appeal reversed the district court, thereby declaring the retroactive application of La. Civ.Code art. 191 to be unconstitutional.

H.C.V. and M.J.V. appealed that judgment to this court pursuant to La. Const, art. V, § 5(d). We render the following decree.

DECREE

The judgment of the court of appeal is vacated and set aside. W.R.M.’s petition to establish filiation is dismissed with prejudice.

JOHNSON, J., CALOGERO, C.J., and TRAYLOR and WEIMER, JJ„ additionally concur and assign reasons. KIMBALL, J., additionally concurs for the reasons assigned by CALOGERO, C.J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

JjOn July 7, 2003, W.R.M. filed a “Petition to Establish Filiation” against H.C.V. and M.J.V., alleging that he is the biological father of A.M.V as a result of an adulterous affair between H.C.V. and W.R.M. In response, H.C.V. and M.J.V. filed exceptions of no cause of action, no right of action, and prescription. While these exceptions were pending, the Louisiana Legislature passed Act 530 of 2004, which enacted La. Civ.Code art. 191. H.C.V. and M.J.V. filed supplemental exceptions based on the application of La. Civ.Code art. 191, arguing that W.R.M. failed to comply with the two-year peremptive period set forth in the article and thus he had no right or cause of action to continue his avowal action.

The district court granted the exceptions of no right of action, no cause of action, and prescription. W.R.M. appealed the judgment to the court of appeal. The court of appeal reversed the district court, thereby declaring the retroactive application of La. Civ.Code art. 191 to be unconstitutional.

H.C.V. and M.J.V. appealed that judgment to this court pursuant to La. Const, art. V, § 5(d). We render the following decree.

DECREE

The judgment of the court of appeal is vacated and set aside. W.R.M.’s petition to establish filiation is dismissed with prejudice.

JOHNSON, J., CALOGERO, C.J., and TRAYLOR and WEIMER, JJ„ additionally concur and assign reasons. KIMBALL, J., additionally concurs for the reasons assigned by CALOGERO, C.J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

951 So. 2d 172, 2007 La. LEXIS 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wrm-v-hcv-la-2007.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack