Louisiana Supreme Court issued a significant ruling in a class action case involving tax credits for solar panels

COVID-19 stretched our legal system and raised questions not easily answered by existing law. One recent question surrounds a dispute between the Governor and the State Legislature regarding the constitutionality of the Governor’s proclamation of a public health emergency in response to COVID-19. Recently, in Governor John Bel Edwards v. Louisiana State Legislature, Louisiana House of Representatives, & Clay Schexnayder, in his official capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives, 2020-CA-1407, the Louisiana Supreme Court was asked to gauge the validity of the legislature’s termination of Governor Edwards’ proclamation. However, the Court did not reach the constitutional questions and remanded the case.

The Governor filed suit to challenge the Legislature’s termination of his COVID-19 proclamation. He argued that the termination was null and void citing both constitutional and non-constitutional grounds. Because the trial court found the termination unconstitutional, it did not address the procedural and non-constitutional challenges raised.

On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in reaching the issue of constitutionality prior to determining whether the dispute could be resolved on non-constitutional grounds. Louisiana law dictates that courts should avoid decisions based upon constitutional grounds unless the constitutional issue is essential to resolution of the case. Although the issues to be addressed were important to the citizens of Louisiana, the Court stated “it is critical a case must reach this court in the proper procedural posture to warrant our review of a ruling on constitutionality.”

The case highlights the role of the Louisiana Supreme Court and reminds both attorneys and the public of how issues are addressed and decided. The Court was express that the issues presented in Edwards were novel and important and may ultimately be issues the high court will choose to address. However, the Court recognized that its powers of constitutional review are constrained by procedure. A civics lesson in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Virginia “Jenny” McLin is a partner at Keogh Cox who practices in the fields of corporate litigation, insurance defense and workers compensation defense. When she is not practicing law, Jenny can be found volunteering with the Junior League of Baton Rouge; cheering for the LSU Tigers with her husband Ryan; or shuffling her two kids to and from dance practice.

Legal malpractice claims in Louisiana are governed by a peremption period that cannot be interrupted or suspended. La. R.S. 9:5605(A) provides that a legal malpractice claim must be brought one year from the date of the alleged malpractice, or within one year from the date the alleged malpractice should have been discovered. However, even when a claim is filed within one year of discovery, it must be filed within three years of the date of the alleged malpractice. If a party fails to assert a legal malpractice claim before the peremption period expires, the right to bring the claim is lost.

The Louisiana Supreme Court holds that “peremption commences to run in a legal malpractice case when a claimant knew or should have known of the existence of facts that would have enabled him to state a cause of action for legal malpractice.” In Crosby v. Waits, Emmett, Popp & Teich, LLC, the court recently examined the types of circumstances that should inform a plaintiff that an act of alleged malpractice occurred, which would trigger the peremptive period in which the plaintiff’s claim must be filed.

The plaintiff in Crosby owned 75% of a company and was in the process of buying out the minority stakeholder. The company was involved in litigation at the time. Initially, the minority stakeholder maintained all of the recovery and risk related to the suit. In April 2016, an attorney advised the plaintiff to accept an offer to split the recovery and risk in the suit 50/50 as part of the sale. The plaintiff then accepted the 50/50 offer. The litigation concluded after the sale, in February 2018, and resulted in an adverse judgment for which the plaintiff was responsible pursuant to the 50/50 agreement.

The plaintiff filed suit on February 12, 2019, within one year of the verdict in the underlying litigation, and claimed that its attorney committed malpractice when he advised that plaintiff accept the offer to split the recovery and risk in the suit. Specifically, it was alleged the attorney failed to examine the nature of the litigation or discover that the seller’s employees were aware the suit bore serious risk. The plaintiff’s representative testified that he did not keep track of the litigation and therefore could not have known the attorney engaged in the alleged malpractice until the jury rendered its verdict in the underlying suit.

However, the minority stakeholder testified that he knew the 50/50 offer was a bad deal for the plaintiff. Another employee testified he thought the risk of loss in the underlying suit was apparent to everyone involved. The court agreed. Based upon the evidence presented, “it should have been obvious to all concerned that the 50/50 option was favorable” to the minority stakeholder, who was adverse to the plaintiff’s interest.

The court held that the plaintiff should have known its attorney may have committed an act of malpractice when he advised it to accept the 50/50 split before the underlying litigation concluded. Accordingly, suit was not filed within one year of when the plaintiff should have known the alleged act of malpractice occurred. The plaintiff’s claims that it lacked such knowledge could not stand up to conflicting evidence. Thus, the claim was peremepted, and the plaintiff’s suit was dismissed.

Case References:

Crosby v. Waits, Emmett, Popp & Teich, LLC, 2022-0395 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/21/22), 352 So. 3d 145.

Jenkins v. Starns, 2011-1170, p. 15 (La. 1/24/12), 85 So.3d 612, 621.

Can a child have more than one father? Yes, according to Louisiana law which allows for "dual paternity."

Louisiana's "family law" has undergone many changes in an attempt to react to the challenges presented by new medical technology and a breakdown of the traditional family structure. The recent Supreme Court decision in Derek Alan Pociask v. Kera Mosely is the latest effort to address these "modern problems."

The Pociask Court explained that there is a public interest in "protect[ing] innocent children, born during marriage, against scandalous attacks upon their paternity by the husband of the mother, who may be seeking to avoid paternal obligations to the child ... Thus, the traditional and historical position of Louisiana jurisprudence was to zealously guard and enforce the presumption of paternity created by the Civil Code." This public policy was easier to promote in the past when a husband may have had no reason to question or ability to challenge his paternity. However, in a world of vasectomies and DNA testing, the husband now has an increased ability to factually prove that he is not the father.

With "dual paternity," the first "father" is the husband of the child's mother. The second "father" is the biological father of the child. This situation can occur because the husband is presumed to be the father of the child under Louisiana law. See, La. C.C. art. 185. This "presumption" becomes incontrovertible if the husband does not bring an action to disavow his paternity within one year from when he learns or should have learned of the child's birth unless the husband lived separate and apart continuously from the mother for three-hundred days immediately preceding the birth of the child. See, La. C.C. art. 189.　

If the husband lived separate and apart for three-hundred days immediately preceding the birth of the child, the husband can bring a disavowal action within one year from being notified in writing that a party in interest asserts that he is the father of the child. If he fails to bring the disavowal action, he will be considered the "father" for all legal purposes. The purpose behind the "separate and apart" exception is to bring legal and biological paternity into "closer association." See, Katherine Shaw Spaht, Who's Your Momma, Who are Your Daddies?: Louisiana's New Law of Filiation, 67 La. L. Rev. 307 at 314 (2007).

In Pociask, the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed what it means to "live separate and apart continuously" from the mother. The plaintiff in Pociask (the presumed father and ex-husband of the defendant mother) brought an action to disavowal his paternity. The disavowal action was brought well over a year after the child's birth.

Factually, the presumed father in Pociask underwent a vasectomy prior to the birth of the child, had not entered into sexual relations with the mother for over three-hundred days (over nine months) prior to the child's birth and had barely seen the mother in the three-hundred days prior to the birth of the child. Moreover, DNA testing proved that he was not the biological father. Nevertheless, the Louisiana Court of Appeals determined that the husband was the presumed father of the child because he did not bring his disavowal action within a year of the child's birth.

The Court of Appeals interpreted the phrase "lived separate and apart continuously" so strictly that the husband's one night stay at the marital domicile during the three-hundred day period preempted the disavowal action. The Appeals Court held that the phrase "lived separate and apart continuously" should not be interpreted in pari materia (in a like manner) with the divorce articles of the Civil Code. In the divorce setting, a spouse will be found to have lived "separate and apart" when the overall circumstances show that there was no mutual intention to resume the marital relationship.

The Pociask Court disagreed with the strict reading of the "separate and apart" language used by the appellate court. According to the Pociask Court, the phrase "lived separate and apart continuously" should be interpreted the same way in a disavowal action as it interpreted with a divorce. Therefore, the overnight visit in Pociask did not serve to interrupt the three-hundred day period and the disavowal action was timely.