Gaston v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc.

• Decision Date: 07 June 2021
• Docket Number: No. S-20-0235,S-20-0235
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court
• Parties: Robin Meeker GASTON, appointed Personal Representative for the Estate of Robert Meeker, deceased, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC., a foreign corporation, d/b/a Westview Health Care Center, Appellee (Defendant).

488 P.3d 929

Robin Meeker GASTON, appointed Personal Representative for the Estate of Robert Meeker, deceased, Appellant (Plaintiff),

v.LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC., a foreign corporation, d/b/a Westview Health Care Center, Appellee (Defendant).

No. S-20-0235

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

June 7, 2021

Representing Appellant: Larry B. Jones and Colin M. Simpson of Burg, Simpson, Eldredge, Hersh & Jardine, PC, Cody, Wyoming; Diana Rhodes and Traci Rivinus of Rhodes Law Firm, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Lena K. Moeller and Amy M. Iberlin of Williams, Porter, Day, and Neville, P.C., Casper, Wyoming.

Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.

KAUTZ, Justice.

[¶1] Robin Meeker Gaston filed a survival action against Life Care Centers of America, Inc., d/b/a Westview Health Care Center (Westview) for injuries her deceased father, Robert Meeker, suffered while in Westview's care. She later moved to amend the complaint to add a wrongful death claim. Westview opposed the motion to amend and filed a motion for summary judgment in the survival action, asserting Ms. Gaston was not the real party in interest because she had not been appointed as the personal representative of the estate by the probate court. The district court denied Ms. Gaston's motion to amend and dismissed the survival action because she was not the real party in interest.

[¶2] We affirm the district court's denial of Ms. Gaston's motion to amend. We reverse the district court's dismissal of Ms. Gaston's survival action and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ISSUES

[¶3] The dispositive issues in this appeal are:

1. Does this Court have jurisdiction over Ms. Gaston's appeal of the denial of her motion to amend the complaint?

2. Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying Ms. Gaston's motion to amend the complaint?

3. Did the district court abuse its discretion by dismissing Ms. Gaston's survival action because she was not the real party in interest?

FACTS

[¶4] Mr. Meeker died on September 6, 2015. Ms. Gaston, Misty S. Oxborrow, and Dustin D. Meeker (the Meeker children) are his surviving children. Gaston v. Wagner (In re Est. of Meeker), 2017 WY 75, ¶ 1, 397 P.3d 183, 185 (Wyo. 2017) ( Gaston I ). In his will, Mr. Meeker named his long-time companion, Carole L. Wagner, as the personal representative of his estate and devised most of his estate to her. Id., ¶ 4, 397 P.3d at 185. Ms. Wagner filed a probate action and was appointed personal representative. Id., ¶¶ 6-7, 397 P.3d at 185. The Meeker children contested the validity of Mr. Meeker's will and requested peremptory disqualification of the district judge. Id. The district court denied the motion for disqualification and granted summary judgment in favor of Ms. Wagner. Id., ¶ 7, 397 P.3d at 185. The Meeker children appealed; we reversed and remanded because the court erred by denying the motion for disqualification. Id., ¶ 2, 397 P.3d at 185. The newly assigned judge held a trial on the Meeker children's will contest, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Ms. Wagner. The Meeker children again appealed to this Court.

[¶5] In the meantime, Ms. Gaston filed a district court action (CV-2017-236), seeking appointment as personal representative of Mr. Meeker's estate, stating appointment was necessary to bring survival and wrongful death actions. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-4-101 (LexisNexis 2019) (survival action); Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 1-38-101 through 105 (LexisNexis 2019) (wrongful death action). Ms. Wagner apparently did not contest Ms. Gaston's request for appointment in CV-2017-236, and the district court appointed Ms. Gaston for the stated purpose.

[¶6] Ms. Gaston filed the instant case (CV-2018-16) on January 19, 2018, consisting of a survival cause of action against Westview. Westview answered and pleaded several affirmative defenses, including that Ms. Gaston was not the real party in interest "to the extent [ ] any right of subrogation exists." The district court set a trial for August 12, 2019.

[¶7] In late May 2019, Ms. Gaston filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a wrongful death claim. Westview opposed the motion, arguing, inter alia, the amendment was futile because Wyoming precedent forbids a plaintiff from bringing a survival claim and a wrongful death claim based on the same underlying facts and Ms. Gaston's wrongful death claim was untimely.

[¶8] On May 28, 2019, Ms. Wagner and the Meeker children signed an "Acknowledgment, Release and Waiver" (Acknowledgment). The Acknowledgment started with several recitals recognizing Ms. Wagner had been appointed personal representative of the estate by the probate court; Ms. Gaston had been appointed personal representative of the estate by the district court to bring a survival and/or wrongful death action; and the parties wished to resolve all matters between them related to the will contest and the survival action. The Meeker children then waived their right to pursue the appeal of the will contest in exchange for Ms. Wagner waiving "all rights to any damages ... and claims to any proceeds of any survivorship or wrongful death legal action related to the alleged injuries suffered by or death of Robert Meeker and any authority she may have [or] claims to have ... over the survivorship action filed by Personal Representative Robin Meeker Gaston[.]" With regard to the pending actions, the Meeker children agreed Ms. Wagner could continue to act as personal representative of the estate in the probate and Ms. Gaston would resign her position as personal representative of the estate when the survival and/or wrongful death action against Westview concluded.

[¶9] Less than a month later, Westview filed a motion for summary judgment claiming Ms. Gaston was not the real party in interest and did not have standing to bring the survival action on behalf of Mr. Meeker's estate because she had not been appointed as personal representative by the probate court. Ms. Gaston contested Westview's motion for summary judgment, arguing she was properly appointed as personal representative of the estate to pursue the survival action; Ms. Wagner had ratified Ms. Gaston's representation of the estate in the survival action with the Acknowledgment; and Westview's real party in interest objection was untimely.

[¶10] The district court held a combined hearing on Ms. Gaston's motion to amend the complaint and Westview's summary judgment motion. The court denied Ms. Gaston's motion to amend but specifically declined to provide the basis for its ruling. It granted Westview's motion for summary judgment, concluding Ms. Gaston was not the real party in interest. Instead of dismissing the survival action, the court gave Ms. Gaston 90 days to substitute the real party in interest pursuant to Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure (W.R.C.P.) 17(a)(3). Ms. Gaston requested and received two extensions of time to substitute the real party in interest but was ultimately unable to secure appointment as personal representative by the probate court or to convince Ms. Wagner to step in as the real party in interest.

[¶11] Westview filed a motion to dismiss the survival action due to Ms. Gaston's failure to substitute the real party in interest. It informed the district court that the probate court had denied Ms. Gaston's motion to be appointed as personal representative of the estate and declined to remove Ms. Wagner from that role.¹ The district court granted Westview's motion to dismiss, and Ms. Gaston appealed.

DISCUSSION

1. Appellate Jurisdiction

[¶12] Westview claims we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of Ms. Gaston's motion to amend the complaint because she failed to appeal that order within 30 days of its issuance. See W.R.A.P. 2.01 ("An appeal from a trial court to an appellate court shall be taken by filing the notice of appeal with the clerk of the trial court within 30 days from entry of the appealable order[.]"). Westview cites no authority in support of its argument, and Ms. Gaston argues we should disregard it.

[¶13] We generally do not consider issues unsupported by cogent argument or citation to pertinent authority. Meiners v. Meiners, 2019 WY 39, ¶ 24, 438 P.3d 1260, 1270 (Wyo. 2019) (citing Tozzi v. Moffett, 2018 WY 133, ¶ 26, 430 P.3d 754, 762 (Wyo. 2018) ). However, an appellant's failure to timely appeal affects this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. W.R.A.P. 1.03 (the timely filing of a proper notice of appeal is jurisdictional). "[T]he absence of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived[.]" Schmitz v. Dep't of Workforce Servs., Labor Standards, 2017 WY 143, ¶ 13, 406 P.3d 312, 315 (Wyo. 2017) (citations omitted).

[¶14] To "avoid fragmentary appeals and decisions made in a piecemeal fashion," the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure only allow appeals from "appealable orders." Painter v. McGill ex rel. Wyo. Bd. of Med. , 2019 WY 108, ¶ 15, 450 P.3d 1243, 1247 (Wyo. 2019) (citing Est. of McLean ex rel. Hall v. Benson, 2003 WY 78, ¶ 8, 71 P.3d 750, 753 (Wyo. 2003) ). Relevant here, W.R.A.P 1.05(a) defines "appealable order" as one that "determines the action." Davidson-Eaton v. Iversen, 2021 WY 49, ¶ 10, 484 P.3d 23, 25 (Wyo. 2021). An appealable order has "three necessary characteristics. ... It must affect a substantial right, determine the merits of the controversy, and resolve all outstanding issues." Jontra Holdings Pty Ltd v. Gas Sensing Tech. Corp. , 2021 WY 17, ¶ 29, 479 P.3d 1222, 1231 (Wyo. 2021) (citations omitted). "Generally[,] a judgment or order which determines the merits of the controversy and leaves nothing for future consideration is final and appealable, and it is not appealable unless it does those things." Woods v. Woods , 2001 WY 131, ¶ 8, 36 P.3d 1142, 1144 (Wyo. 2001) (citations omitted).

[¶15] Ms. Gaston was not required to immediately appeal the district court's denial of her motion to amend the complaint. An order denying a motion to amend...