Effective August 1, 2026, the Louisiana Legislature amended Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 561 to codify a principle that had previously been established only through jurisprudence. Under these changes, enacted through Acts 2026, No. 127, § 1, after the three-year abandonment period has expired, a defendant may renounce the defense of abandonment under certain conditions.

Abandonment and Renunciation Under La. C.C.P. Article 561

Under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 561, an action is abandoned when a party fails to take any step in its prosecution or defense for a period of three years. Abandonment is self-executing (it operates automatically without formal order or a motion by any party) and the code article uses the mandatory word “shall,” leaving courts with no discretion in the matter.

However, the new revisions add that “[a]fter the three-year abandonment period has expired, the defendant may renounce the defense of abandonment.” The article does not provide any context or guidance as to what constitutes a renunciation of abandonment. However, this is not a new principle to Louisiana law since this principle already existed in jurisprudence.  We can turn to that jurisprudence to understand this new codification of an old rule.

Foundation Elevation & Repair, LLC v. Miller, 408 So. 3d 893 (La. 2025)

In the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision in Foundation Elevation & Repair, LLC v. Miller, no party had taken any step in the case for a period exceeding three years. 408 So. 3d 893 (La. 2025). After the defendants filed a motion to confirm a default judgment, counsel for the third-party defendant, Direct Source Home Renovation, LLC (“DSHR”), filed a one-page general denial answer to the motion. Just days later, DSHR filed an ex parte motion to dismiss based on abandonment.

The Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal found that DSHR had waived abandonment by filing its answer. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, explaining that the doctrine of renunciation, which is rooted liberative prescription, requires that for an action to be considered a renunciation of abandonment it must “clearly or directly demonstrat[e] [the defendant’s] preference and intent to proceed” with the merits of the litigation.

DSHR’s short general-denial answer, filed only to prevent confirmation of a default judgment and followed just days later by a motion to dismiss, did not rise to the level of renunciation.

Codification in the 2026 Amendments

The 2026 amendments to Article 561 expressly adopt the Miller framework. The revised Article 561(A)(2) now provides that “[a]fter the three-year abandonment period has expired, the defendant may renounce the defense of abandonment”. As the 2026 Official Revision Comments explain, the amendments “adopt current jurisprudential rules providing that a step in the prosecution or defense of an action interrupts the three-year abandonment period and that, after the three-year abandonment period has expired, the defendant may renounce the defense of abandonment” while citing directly to the Miller case.

The new law also requires additional procedural safeguards when seeking an abandonment dismissal. A party seeking ex parte dismissal must now file a detailed affidavit certifying, among other things, that no renunciation has occurred. The court may only grant an ex parte judgment of dismissal if the record and the affidavit confirm that the defendant has not renounced the defense of abandonment.

Avoiding Renunciation of Abandonment

This raises a potentially dangerous issue for unwary defendants. Under the new revisions to Article 561, any post-abandonment action by a defendant that clearly and directly demonstrates the defendant’s preference and intent to proceed may constitute a renunciation of the abandonment defense. This may occur even if the defendant is unaware of the abandonment timeline at the time and thus unwittingly renounces the abandonment. Any action after the three-year period has accrued by way of filing substantive pleadings, moving to continue a hearing, or taking other actions demonstrating an intent to litigate on the merits, may inadvertently waive the case’s abandonment.

As Justice Griffin noted in his concurrence in Miller, filing a motion to continue a hearing with an accompanying order requesting a new date “clearly demonstrates a preference and intent to proceed thereby renouncing the defense of abandonment”.

The practical takeaway for defendants is straightforward: before taking any action in a dormant case, always check whether the three-year abandonment period has run. If it has, any action beyond filing a motion to dismiss based on abandonment should be taken with caution because such action could permanently waive the right to an abandonment based dismissal.

Ambrose Stearns is an associate in Kean Miller’s Commercial Litigation and Offshore Energy & Marine groups, based in the firm’s Lafayette office. He represents businesses of all sizes, including insurance companies and publicly and privately held businesses, in federal and state courts, handling commercial disputes, premises liability and general casualty claims, insurance litigation, UM/UIM claims, and appellate matters. Ambrose also advises clients on transactional and corporate matters, including entity formation, regulatory compliance, employment agreements, commercial contracts, and service arrangements.