Frances Elizabeth Claybourn v. Maria Finley and Maria A. Finley Attorney At Law LLC

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

FRANCES ELIZABETH CLAYBOURN NO. 2026 CW 0342
VERSUS PAGE 1 OF 2

MARIA FINLEY AND MARIA A.
FINLEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
AUGUST 25, 2026

In Re: Maria Finley and Maria A. Finley, Attorney At Law,
applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District
Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. C-765583.

BEFORE : McCLENDON, C.J., THERIOT, MILLER, GREENE, AND HAGGERTY,?
JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The trial court’s November 12, 2025 judgment
denying the Peremptory Exception of Prescription filed by
defendants, Maria Finley and Maria Finley, Attorney at Law, LLC,
is reversed. La. R.S. 9:5605(A) provides a legal malpractice action
shall be brought within one year from the date of the alleged act,
omission, or neglect, or within one year from the date that the
alleged act, omission, or neglect is discovered or should have
been discovered. However, even as to actions filed within one year
from the date of such discovery, in all events such actions shall
be filed at the latest within three years from the date of the
alleged act, omission, or neglect. Id. The one-year and three-year
periods of limitation provided in Subsection A of this Section are
peremptive periods within the meaning of Civil Code Article 3458
and, in accordance with Civil Code Article 3461, may not be
renounced, interrupted, or suspended. La. R.S. 9:5605(B).

The alleged act, omission, or neglect occurred on February
19, 2021, when defendants failed to follow the provisions of then
La. Civ. Code art. 1579 in preparing decedent’s will. The Louisiana
Supreme Court has held La. R.S. 9:5605’s peremptive periods began
to run “when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the
existence of facts that would have enabled her to state a cause of
action for legal malpractice.” Jenkins v. Starns 2011-1170 (ha.
01/24/12), 85 So.3d 612. The Court held that to trigger the running
of the peremptive pericd, a plaintiff must have actual or
constructive knowledge: (1) of the damage or harm; (2) that the
damage or harm was caused by a delictual act; and (3) that
defendants were connected to the damage. Id. at 621-622.

We find plaintiff knew or should have known of the existence
of facts that would have enabled her to state a cause of action
for legal malpractice, at the latest, on March 18, 2021, when
decedent’s 2021 will was publicly filed for probate by Maria Finley
in the succession proceeding. Plaintiff opposed the probate on the
grounds of Maria Finley’s failure to comply with the provisions of
La. Civ. Code art. 1579. Plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim was
not filed until more than three years later on July il, 2025.

1Honorable Bryan D. Haggerty is serving ad hoc by special appointment of the
Louisiana Supreme Court.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2026 CW 0342
PAGE 2 OF 2

Therefore, defendants’ exception of prescription is granted
and plaintiff's claims made against defendants, Maria Finley and
Maria Finley, Attorney at Law, LLC, are dismissed with prejudice.

MRT
SMM
BDH

McClendon, C.J., concurs in the result reached by the majority
in granting the writ.

Green, J., dissents and would deny the writ.

“COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

FOR THE COURT