Nix v. McElrath
Decision Date | 18 August 2006 |
Docket Number | 1040259. |
Parties | Jack D. NIX, Jr. v. Robin McELRATH, as mother and next friend of Magen K. Nix, deceased. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
James B. Pittman, Jr., Daphne, for appellant.
Bryan N. Cigelski of Taylor Martino, P.C., Mobile, for appellee.
This case concerns a wrongful-death action brought in the Baldwin Circuit Court by Robin McElrath ("the mother"), as mother and next friend of her deceased minor daughter, Magen K. Nix. The two issues presented for review are whether the mother, a divorced parent, had the exclusive right to commence the wrongful-death action, and whether she had the exclusive right to the proceeds from this action.
Magen was born on December 15, 1984, during the marriage of the mother and Thomas Wayne Dixon. The mother and Dixon subsequently divorced, and the mother later married Jack D. Nix, Jr. After the marriage, Nix petitioned the Probate Court of Mobile County to adopt his stepchild, Magen. That petition was granted on December 17, 1992, and a final judgment of adoption was rendered creating a parent-child relationship between Nix ("the father") and Magen and legally changing Magen's name to Magen Kristen Nix.1 Approximately eight years later, the mother and the father divorced. The terms of the divorce judgment relevant to this action are set out and discussed below.
On September 4, 2003, shortly after enrolling as a freshman at Auburn University, Magen and her friend Robyn Kendall visited Fat Daddy's Fine Foods, a bar in Auburn. They were allegedly served alcoholic beverages even though both were minors. Magen and Robyn subsequently left Fat Daddy's in Robyn's car, which Robyn was driving, and were involved in an automobile accident in which both girls were killed.
On December 8, 2003, the mother filed the underlying action against Robyn Kendall, by and through her mother, Donna Kendall, and against AIU Insurance Company, the mother's uninsured/underinsured-motorist ("UM/UIM") insurance carrier. Later, the mother amended her complaint to add as defendants AL-LU Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Fat Daddy's Fine Foods, under a dram-shop theory of liability.
On June 4, 2004, the defendant Donna Kendall, as mother of Robyn Kendall, deceased, by and through her automobile insurance carrier State Farm Insurance, filed a motion to interplead the available proceeds of her automobile liability insurance policy. The trial court granted Kendall and State Farm's motion to allow interpleader of the funds on June 9, 2004. On July 12, 2004, the mother filed a motion for disbursement of the interpleaded funds, requesting that attorney fees be paid to her counsel and that she receive the balance of the interpleaded funds.
Although the record is silent as to the particulars, at some point the father was appointed the administrator of Magen's estate, and he then entered an appearance in the Baldwin Circuit Court wrongful-death action, moving to intervene as an indispensable party pursuant to Rule 19, Ala. R. Civ. P. He also objected to the disbursement of interpleaded funds, and he filed a cross-motion for one-half of those funds. The mother objected to the father's intervention and to his cross-motion to divide the interpleaded funds.
The trial court set all pending motions for hearing on August 31, 2004, and after the hearing took all matters under submission. The mother and the father filed a joint stipulation of undisputed facts on October 6, 2004, and the trial court entered the following order on October 12, 2004:
The father filed a Rule 59(e), Ala. R. Civ. 0P., postjudgment motion to alter or amend its judgment, which the trial court denied. The UM/UIM claim and the claim based on dram-shop liability remain pending.2 The trial court certified its judgment as final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. The father appealed.
American Res. Ins. Co. v. H & H Stephens Constr., Inc., 939 So.2d 868, 872-73 (Ala.2006)(quoting Bean Dredging, L.L.C. v. Alabama Dep't of Revenue, 855 So.2d 513, 516-17 (Ala.2003)).
Both the father and the mother persuasively argued at the trial level as to which of them, as divorced parents given "joint custody," have the right to maintain a wrongful-death action, an action for UM/ UIM benefits, and a dram-shop claim on behalf of their deceased daughter, and, secondarily, whether that right is exclusive. However, the father's statement that "because both the [UM/UIM] claim as well as the dram shop claim have since similarly been settled [referring to the already settled claim against Robyn Kendall's insurance carrier], the issue of whether [the father] was entitled to act as a co-plaintiff in prosecuting those claims based on his joint legal custodial status as set forth in the first and second paragraph of the Trial Court's Order is now moot." (The father's brief, p. 16.) The father, therefore, although devoting a substantial portion of his brief to addressing this issue, has conceded that the issue is now moot.
Notwithstanding the father's concession of the mootness of the issue of who had the exclusive right to bring the action, the mother, who initiated the action, must have standing to prosecute this action. Doremus v. Business Council of Alabama Workers' Compensation Self-Insurers Fund, 686 So.2d 252, 253 (Ala.1996). The judgment divorcing the parties provides the following regarding custody:
(Emphasis added.)
Alabama's statute pertaining to the wrongful death of a minor child, Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-391, provides, in part:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Underwood v. Ala. State Bd. Of Educ.
...868, 872-73 (Ala.2006)(quoting Bean Dredging, L.L.C. v. Alabama Dep't of Revenue, 855 So.2d 513, 516-17 (Ala.2003)).” Nix v. McElrath, 952 So.2d 1107, 1110 (Ala.2006). Discussion The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief and included a prayer that the trial court:“1. Issue a d......
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Chestang
-
The Malignant Mystique of "standing"
...the federal constitutionality of a state statute.4. 740 So. 2d 1025 (Ala. 1999).5. 740 So. 2d at 1028 (italics and brackets added).6. 952 So. 2d 1107, 1110 (Ala. 2006).7. 950 So. 2d 1131, 1135 (Ala. 2006).8. 950 So. 2d 277, 279 (Ala. 2006).9. 890 So.2d 92 (Ala. 2003).10. See, e.g., Mason v.......