Gallo v. Gallo
861 So.2d 168, 2003 WL 22853839 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legal presumptive father who fails to timely file a disavowal action within the peremptive period cannot be reimbursed for past child support payments, even after it is proven he is not the biological father, because the obligation was legally owed at the time of payment and a specific statute bars such recovery.
Facts:
- Michael Gallo and Brenda Ann Conner Gallo were married in 1978.
- A child, M.L.G., was born to Brenda Gallo on April 27, 1985, during the marriage.
- The Gallos separated in 1991 and divorced in 1992.
- For over thirteen years, Michael Gallo believed he was M.L.G.'s biological father and fulfilled paternal roles and obligations.
- In 2000, blood and tissue tests established that Michael Gallo was not the biological father of M.L.G.
- Following the test results, Michael Gallo, Brenda Gallo, and the biological father, Joseph Nelson, signed a three-party acknowledgment of paternity identifying Nelson as the biological father and Gallo as the 'legal presumptive father'.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Gallo filed a 'Petition to Disavow Paternity' in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans.
- The trial court ordered blood testing and subsequently issued a judgment stating Gallo was not the biological father and relieved him of future support obligations.
- Gallo then filed a rule in the same court to require Brenda Gallo to reimburse him for $22,125.00 in past child support.
- The trial court denied Gallo's request for reimbursement.
- Gallo, as appellant, appealed the denial of reimbursement to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, ordering Brenda Gallo, as appellee, to reimburse Michael Gallo.
- Brenda Gallo, as applicant, successfully sought a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of Louisiana to review the appellate court's decision.
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 a legal presumptive father have a right to be reimbursed by his ex-wife for child support payments made for a child born during their marriage, after it is determined he is not the biological father?
Opinions:
Majority - Weimer, J.
No. A legal presumptive father is not entitled to reimbursement of past child support payments from the mother. Mr. Gallo's action to disavow paternity was perempted, as it was filed more than one year after the child's birth, the time limit prescribed by La. C.C. art. 189. The statutory suspension provided by La. R.S. 9:305 does not apply because he filed his petition more than 10 years after the child's birth and missed the 180-day grace period for retroactive application. Crucially, even if the disavowal action were timely, La. R.S. 9:305(B) explicitly bars reimbursement of any child support paid prior to the filing of the disavowal action. Furthermore, reimbursement is not available under La. C.C. art. 2299 for payment of a thing not owed, because the child support was for the benefit of the child and was a legal obligation of the presumptive father when paid. Fatherhood is established by more than genetics, and Mr. Gallo received the benefits of the parental relationship for many years.
Dissenting - Johnson, J.
Yes. The statutory presumptions of paternity are archaic and should not override conclusive scientific evidence. Given that DNA testing definitively excluded Michael Gallo as the biological father, and all parties acknowledged this fact, the court should declare that no mutual obligations of support exist between Gallo and the child. The law should not enforce a financial obligation based on a biological fiction, especially when the truth is undisputed.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the paramount importance of the legal presumption of paternity and the strictness of peremptive periods for disavowal actions in Louisiana law. The court's holding demonstrates that even irrefutable scientific evidence, such as DNA testing, cannot overcome a failure to challenge paternity within the statutorily defined time limits. The decision prioritizes the stability of the child's legal status and financial support over correcting a biological inaccuracy discovered years later. It also clarifies that child support is fundamentally an obligation for the child's benefit, insulating the recipient parent from unjust enrichment claims and reinforcing the specific legislative prohibition against retroactive reimbursement.
Unlock the full brief for Gallo v. Gallo