Background
Lawrence Hendrickson’s father purportedly executed a will leaving his entire estate to a neighbor and disinheriting Hendrickson, his only child. After the father’s death, attorney Myrna E. Arroyo and her law firm filed a petition to probate the will on behalf of the named executor. Hendrickson challenged the will, and the district court ultimately declared it an absolute nullity because of multiple defects in its execution and form.
Hendrickson later sued Arroyo and her firm, individually and as administrator of his father’s succession. He alleged that they failed to investigate or disclose the will’s defects, improperly sought its probate, provided incompetent representation to the succession, and breached contractual and other duties. The district court sustained the attorneys’ exception of peremption under La. R.S. 9:5605 and dismissed all claims against them with prejudice.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It held that La. R.S. 9:5605 governed all claims against the Arroyo defendants. Although Hendrickson’s individual claims did not arise from an attorney-client engagement between him and the defendants, the statute applied under precedent governing claims by nonclient third-party beneficiaries whose interests were allegedly harmed by an attorney’s work for a succession. The succession’s own claims likewise sounded in legal malpractice arising from the attorneys’ representation of the succession representative.
The court also held that the statutory fraud exception did not apply. Hendrickson neither pleaded specific facts showing that the Arroyo defendants intentionally misrepresented or suppressed the truth to obtain an unjust advantage or cause harm nor introduced evidence establishing such fraud. Because Hendrickson knew or should have known of the alleged malpractice no later than January 26, 2021, when he filed his motion to annul the will, his November 22, 2022 damages suit fell outside the one-year peremptive period.
Key Takeaways
- Louisiana’s legal-malpractice peremption statute can govern a nonclient heir’s third-party-beneficiary claims against attorneys who represented a succession representative.
- The fraud exception requires specific allegations and proof of intentional deception; allegations amounting to negligence or failure to investigate are insufficient.
- Peremption began when Hendrickson knew or should have known that attorney conduct may have contributed to the attempted probate of the defective will, no later than the filing of his motion to annul.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that plaintiffs cannot avoid La. R.S. 9:5605 merely by characterizing attorney-related claims as intentional torts, contract claims, or claims brought by a nonclient. Courts will examine the substance of the allegations and may apply legal-malpractice peremption to claims asserted by heirs and successions.
It also underscores the strict effect of peremption: absent an adequately established fraud exception, the period cannot be suspended by the continuing-tort doctrine or by a plaintiff’s later acquisition of authority to act for a succession.