Naquin v. Naquin
| Decision Date | 16 July 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 12675,12675 |
| Citation | 374 So.2d 148 |
| Parties | Harold John NAQUIN, Jr. v. Wanda R. NAQUIN. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Anthony J. Marabella, Baton Rouge, counsel for plaintiff-appellee Harold John Naquin, Jr.
Gary Partney, Alexandria, counsel for defendant-appellant Wanda R. Naquin.
Lee H. des Bordes, Jr., Baton Rouge, counsel for defendant-appellant Randolph Christopher Bozzelle.
Before LANDRY, COVINGTON and PONDER, JJ.
The attorney appointed to represent the minor appealed from a judgment of disavowal.
The sole issue is whether the disavowal action had prescribed.
We affirm.
Mr. and Mrs. Naquin separated in 1972, with an understanding that she would obtain a divorce. Late in 1973, she began living with one Bertram Bozzelle in Texas, without benefit of matrimony, but with the general representation to the public that she was the man's wife. She gave the name of Randolph Christopher Bozzelle to the child born on November 23, 1974. In November, 1976, she brought the child to visit her former mother-in-law, whom she told that she had remarried and that the child was issue of that marriage. She stated she had not seen the plaintiff after separation until about January, 1978. She never got a divorce. Until late 1977 she never told the plaintiff even indirectly she had not remarried.
Plaintiff secured a divorce in October, 1974. He testified he had no inkling that she had not remarried or that she was thinking of asserting his paternity until shortly before he filed this suit in December, 1977.
On these facts plus a blood test that concluded that plaintiff could not be the father of the child the court granted the disavowal, overruling the plea of prescription.
In Pounds v. Schori, 369 So.2d 1090 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1979), we recently held that LSA-C.C. Art. 191, prior to repeal by Act No. 430 of 1976, would be applied to the case of a child born on July 22, 1976. However, that was based upon the conclusion that "nothing in the pleadings or record" suggested "that the time limitations commenced at any date other than the date of the child's birth." Here we are holding that because of the representations of the mother that the child was issue of a second marriage, the suit could not be filed prior to plaintiff's being put on notice that these statements were not true. We think it only logical to apply the present C.C. Art. 189:
"A suit for disavowal of paternity must be filed within one hundred eighty days after the husband learned or should have learned of the birth of the child; but, if the husband for reasons beyond his control is not able to file suit timely, then the time for filing suit shall be suspended during the period of such inability."
We are convinced, too, that the term...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farrell v. Farrell
...in order to mislead him into believing the child was his own. We find appellant's argument to be without merit. In Naquin v. Naquin, 374 So.2d 148 (La.App. 1st Cir.1979), we held [b]ecause of the representations of the mother that the child was issue of a second marriage, the suit could not......
-
Williams v. Williams
...apprising him of a possible paternity claim. See Robertson v. Young, 433 So.2d 421 (La.App. 4th Cir.1983) and Naquin v. Naquin, 374 So.2d 148 (La.App. 1st Cir.1979). Throughout our jurisprudence, the codal articles governing actions to disavow paternity have been given strict construction. ......
-
Succession of Cosse
...on the subject. The circuit court opinions in Goodrich v. Goodrich, 421 So.2d 958 (La.App. 3d Cir.1982) and Naquin v. Naquin, 374 So.2d 148 (La.App. 1st Cir.1979) also indicate that under the circumstances, Cosse's right to contest the legitimacy of Seraphine's children did not prescribe pr......
-
Goodrich v. Goodrich
...grounds to assume that he need not institute disavowal proceedings. In so reasoning, the trial court, citing Naquin v. Naquin, 374 So.2d 148 (La.App. 1st Cir.1979), concluded that in order for prescription to run against the plaintiff, he must be supplied with such facts as to indicate that......