Duplechin v. Toce
497 So. 2d 763 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of interspousal immunity, which prevents one spouse from suing another, merely suspends the right of action during the marriage. It does not destroy the underlying cause of action, which can be pursued once the marriage is terminated by divorce.
Facts:
- Janelle Marie Duplechin and John Joseph Toce were married.
- Toce had a history of physically abusing Duplechin during their marriage.
- On August 16, 1980, an altercation occurred in the parties' home.
- During this altercation, Toce tied Duplechin with a telephone cord, beat her with his fists and the telephone, bit her, and threatened to kill her.
- As a result of the beating, Duplechin was hospitalized for 25 days with severe injuries, including a lacerated scalp, two black eyes, a broken nose, and a perforated eardrum.
- Duplechin and Toce were granted a divorce on December 15, 1981.
Procedural Posture:
- On August 13, 1981, Janelle Marie Duplechin (plaintiff) filed her first petition for damages against John Joseph Toce (defendant) in a Louisiana trial court while the parties were still married.
- The trial court granted Toce's Exception of No Right of Action, dismissing the suit based on interspousal immunity.
- After the parties divorced, Duplechin filed a second petition for damages on January 5, 1982.
- The trial court overruled Toce's subsequent Exceptions of Prescription, Res Judicata, No Cause, and No Right of Action.
- Following a trial on the merits, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Duplechin.
- The trial court denied Toce's motion for a new trial.
- John Joseph Toce, as defendant-appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of interspousal immunity under La.R.S. 9:291 permanently bar a spouse from suing the other for a tort committed during the marriage, even after the marriage has been terminated by divorce?
Opinions:
Majority - Doucet, J.
No. The doctrine of interspousal immunity does not permanently bar a suit for a tort committed during the marriage; it merely suspends the right of action until the marriage is terminated. The court reasoned that the purpose of interspousal immunity is to preserve domestic tranquility, a policy that is no longer valid once a marriage has ended in divorce. Citing Gremillion v. Caffey, the court held that a judgment of divorce removes the legal incapacity to sue, placing the former spouses in the same position as if they had never been married. Therefore, the applicability of the immunity doctrine is determined by the timing of the judicial proceedings, not the time of the tort's occurrence. Since prescription (the time limit for filing a suit) is suspended between spouses during marriage, the cause of action remains viable and can be brought after the divorce.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that interspousal immunity in Louisiana is a procedural bar related to the parties' status, not a substantive one that extinguishes a legal claim. By holding that the immunity is lifted upon divorce, the court prevents the doctrine from becoming a shield for domestic abuse. This ruling establishes a clear precedent that victims of spousal torts are not left without a civil remedy, ensuring they can seek compensation for injuries once the policy reason for the immunity—preserving marital harmony—no longer exists. The case solidifies the principle that the right to sue is merely suspended, not destroyed, by the marital relationship.
Unlock the full brief for Duplechin v. Toce