Taliaferro v. Goff Group
Decision Date | 30 June 2006 |
Docket Number | 2040627. |
Citation | 947 So.2d 1073 |
Parties | Dan W. TALIAFERRO, administrator of the estate of Luis Martinez Silva v. GOFF GROUP. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Greg L. Davis, Montgomery, for appellant.
Joseph H. Driver and Vincent Swiney II of Carr, Allison, Pugh, Howard, Oliver & Sisson, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee.
Dan W. Taliaferro, as administrator of the estate of Luis Martinez Silva ("the administrator"), appeals from the judgment of the Shelby Circuit Court denying death benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act, Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-1 et seq., to Silva's dependants. Because we conclude that the circuit court did not have before it certain parties that were necessary for an appropriate disposition of the case, we reverse and remand.
Jarman Construction employed Luis Martinez Silva. On September 12, 2003, Silva died as a result of injuries he received in a work-related accident. He was survived by a wife, Reynalda Alanis Duran, and two minor children, Martin Martinez Alanis and Carlos Martinez Alanis. At the time of his death, Silva's wife and children resided in Mexico.
On July 26, 2004, the Goff Group, Jarman Construction's workers' compensation insurance carrier ("Goff"), filed a complaint that it styled as a "Petition by Employer to Determine Death Benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law." Goff named only Silva as a defendant in its complaint. Goff alleged, among other things: Goff filed its complaint against Silva on the basis of Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-88, which provides that any party to a controversy arising under Articles 2 and 3 of the Workers' Compensation Act may file an action to determine what compensation, if any, is due to a worker or, in the case of the worker's death, the worker's dependents. On September 15, 2004, the administrator of Silva's estate filed a motion to dismiss, which was subsequently denied on November 3, 2004.
On January 27, 2005, the circuit court held a bench trial. On March 7, 2005, it entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a final judgment regarding death benefits due under the Workers' Compensation Act as a result of Silva's death. As part of its conclusions of law, the court stated:
In the conclusion of its judgment, the circuit court stated:
The administrator appeals, contending that Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-82, is unconstitutional. He argues that the withholding of death benefits provided by that statute from the nonresident dependents of a deceased worker violates the due-process rights of those workers with nonresident dependents and treats them in a disparate manner that violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. We do not reach those issues because we find another issue to be dispositive.
Rule 19(a) and (b), Ala. R. Civ. P., provides:
The failure to join a necessary party is a jurisdictional defect that can be raised for the first time on appeal. Burnett v. Munoz, 853 So.2d 963, 965 (Ala.Civ.App.2002). Even when neither party raises the issue, this court can raise the issue ex mero motu. Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. American Guarantee and Liab. Ins. Co., 892 So.2d 369, 371 (Ala.2004).
Our Supreme Court recently discussed the application of Rule 19 in Liberty National Life Insurance Co. v. University of Alabama Health Services Foundation, P.C., 881 So.2d 1013 (Ala. 2003):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Prattville Memorial Chapel v. Parker
...that case. Similarly, Memorial Chapel's argument on this issue consists of a single paragraph and one citation to Taliaferro v. Goff Group, 947 So.2d 1073 (Ala.Civ.App.2006),4 for the general proposition that a trial court's judgment may be reversed for failure to join an indispensable part......
- Ex Parte Russell
-
Duran v. Goff Group, 2070763.
...H. Driver of Carr, Allison, Pugh, Howard, Oliver & Sisson, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee. PITTMAN, Judge. In Taliaferro v. Goff Group, 947 So.2d 1073 (Ala.Civ.App.2006), this court an appeal from a judgment of the Shelby Circuit Court determining that under § 25-5-82, Ala.Code 1975, a port......
-
Brewton v. Baker
...to join them or, if it was not feasible to join them, whether the action should proceed in their absence.1 In Taliaferro v. Goff Group, 947 So.2d 1073 (Ala.Civ.App.2006), this court stated: "The failure to join a necessary party is a jurisdictional defect that can be raised for the first ti......