Art. 1033.Delay For Filing Incidental Demand

Timing matters in incidental demands. Article 1033 draws a bright line at the answer to the principal demand. Up to and including the moment that answer is filed, a party can file an incidental demand — a reconventional demand, a cross-claim, a third-party demand — without asking the court's permission.

After that point, the door doesn't close, but it does require a key. A party can still file an incidental demand later, but only with leave of court, and only if doing so won't retard the progress of the principal action. A court weighing that request looks at how far the case has already moved and whether pulling in a new claim at this stage would delay the parties who are ready to proceed.

Article 1033 also flags two built-in exceptions to the leave requirement: Article 1066, which lets a defendant present a reconventional demand that matured or was acquired after the answer, and Article 1092, which sets its own timing rules for a third person intervening in seized property. Both provisions supply their own timing framework rather than deferring entirely to the general leave-of-court standard.

The article also settles a filing-date question. When an incidental demand needs leave of court, and the court later grants it, the demand is treated as filed on the date it was first presented to the clerk — not the later date the court signs off. That protects a party from a prescription problem caused by delay in getting a judge's signature.