One who claims fraud, misrepresentation, or deception, must bear the burden of proving such.
Defendant father sought review of an order of the district court which sustained the exception of prescription that plaintiff mother filed to the father's petition to disavow paternity based on the alleged misrepresentation, fraud, or deception of the mother. The father claimed that while the divorce action between him and the mother was pending, he began to hear rumors questioning his daughter's true paternity, and as a reaction to the rumors, he filed a petition to disavow the exception of prescription.
Did a father, who sought to disavow paternity after rumors of his daughter's true father, have the burden of proof to show fraud, misrepresentation, or deception on the part of the mother?
On review, the court held that the only support the father presented for his disavowal action were hearsay statements concerning what the CEO of the mother's workplace allegedly said in mixed company. The trial court disallowed the statements, and the court agreed. The court further held that the burden of proof was on the father to show fraud, misrepresentation, or deception on the part of the mother, but he offered no proof of any fraud. The mother testified that she had been faithful to her husband during their marriage. Additionally, the father filed his motion for blood tests after the 180-day period for such a motion had elapsed, so the trial court had not committed error by finding the action had prescribed. The court affirmed the decision of the trial court to sustain the exception of prescription that the mother filed in the fahter's petition to disavow paternity. The court assessed all costs to the father.