Opinion ID: 1758555
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: liberative prescription concept

Text: Blue Cross seizes on the statement in McNamara, 561 So.2d at 718 (La.1990), that civilian prescriptive periods act to extinguish the civil obligation to which they apply, rather than as mere procedural bars in the common law, citing a comment to our liberative prescription articles in the 1870 Civil Code. McNamara, 561 So.2d at 718. Our emphasis. The concept of that comment is not reproduced in the 1982 revision of the prescription articles and is declared in the 1982 revision comment to have been not accurate. The 1870 concept is corrected and placed in the proper context in the 1982 revision of the chapter on prescription in our civil code by the articles and accompanying Revision Comments: The 1982 revision explains there are three, not two, kinds of prescription, the prescription of non-use now being included with the traditional two, acquisitive and liberative, prescriptions. Art. 3445. Revision Comment (b), Art. 3445 states that liberative prescription, being a bar to an action, is clearly distinguishable from prescription of non-use, which is a mode of extinction of real rights rather than ownership.... The slight change in conceptual technique does not involve change in the law. Art. 3447 states: Liberative prescription is a mode of barring of actions as a result of inaction for a period of time. Our emphasis. The comment following this article also draws the clear distinction noted by Art. 3445 and its comment. The language of the 1870 code [liberative prescription being a manner of discharging debts and a peremptory and perpetual bar ...] is not accurate and has not been reproduced in this [1982] revision. Our emphasis. The comment further distinguishes discharging debts and extinguishing claims, recognizing that after the accrual of liberative prescription, a natural obligation remains. Comment (b) in part. Comment (c) thereafter quotes the C.C.P. Art. 621 definition of an action, a demand for the enforcement of a legal right. The Comments following the next article, Art. 3448, which speak of the prescription of non-use, also make the clear distinction, explaining that [l]iberative prescription bars actions .... [while] the prescription of non-use extinguishes the right itself [and] no natural obligation remains. Comments (b) and (c), Art. 3448. Our emphasis. Under our law, prescriptive statutes are to be strictly construed against prescription and in favor of the claim that is said to be extinguished. Of the two possible constructions, the one that maintains enforcement of the claim or action, rather than the one that bars enforcement, should be adopted. See Lima v. Schmidt, 595 So.2d 624 (La.1992); Bustamento v. Tucker, 607 So.2d 532 (La.1992). Our holding that liberative prescription does not bar the State's claim to the presumed abandoned or unclaimed property is not contrary to civil code authority. The next obvious inquiry is when did the statutory obligation to the State arise?