 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Socia v. Traditions1/14/2005
Mandate Issued: 02/18/2005
On September 16, 2002, James Jay Socia, was fatally injured in an automobile accident. The decedent was survived by his mother, Movant/Appellant, Karen Szymanski, and his only child, Sarah Ann Socia, a minor. Plaintiff /Appellee, Sharon Ann Socia, the ex-wife and mother of the decedent's minor child, was appointed as guardian of the minor child's estate. Appellee was thereafter appointed as personal representative of decedent's estate. In her capacity as personal representative, Appellee filed a wrongful death action against the defendants pursuant to 12 O.S. 2001 §1053.
During the wrongful death proceeding, Appellant filed a motion to intervene to assert a claim for damages under §1053(B). Appellant sought damages for her grief and loss of companionship of the decedent. Her motion to intervene was overruled. When Appellee filed a motion to approve a compromise settlement in the amount of $100,000.00, Appellant re-urged an earlier filed motion for apportionment and evidentiary hearing. The trial court approved the settlement, but denied Appellant's motion. The trial court's order held:
Karen Szymanski is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing or damages under Okla Statutes, Title 12, Sec. 1053 and Ouellette v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 1994 OK 79, 918 P.2d 54 as a matter of law Karen Szymanski's Motion for Apportionment and Request for Hearing should be and hereby is overruled.
Appellant now appeals the trial court's order denying her request for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of apportionment.
As a preliminary matter, we address Appellee's motion to dismiss. Appellee sought to dismiss Appellant's appeal on the basis she did not timely appeal the trial court's denial of her motion to intervene. The Supreme Court deferred consideration of the dismissal motion until the decisional stage. Appellee re-urged the motion to dismiss in her response brief. In reply, Appellant concedes she did not appeal the trial court's order denying her motion to intervene, but urges she was not required to intervene in the wrongful death proceeding to assert her claim for apportionment. We agree.
Under §1053(B), Appellant may be entitled to a portion of the wrongful death recovery. However, because only the authorized representative of a decedent's estate may prosecute a wrongful death action under §1053(A), Appellant is statutorily prohibited from bringing any action of her own. See Ouellette v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 1994 OK 79, , 918 P.2d 1363, 1366. Thus, although Appellant may have been denied the opportunity to intervene as a matter of right in the wrongful death action, she may have a unique interest in the distribution of the wrongful death damage award under §1053(B). See Plain v. Murphy Family Farms, 296 F.3d 975, 979-80 (10 th Cir. 2002). Because of this unique interest, we find Appellant had the right under §1053 to assert her claim for apportionment even though she was not permitted to intervene. Appellee's motion to dismiss is denied.
Now, we address the substantive portion of Appellant's appeal. Appellant urges the trial court erred when it determined that under Ouellette, Appellant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing or damages under §1053 as a matter of law. To address this issue, we must analyze the legal rulings in Ouellette in conjunction with the legislative intent expressed in §1053. Statutory interpretation raises a legal question which is subject to a de novo standard of review. State ex rel. Dept. of Transp. v. Little, 2004 OK 74, , 100 P.3d 707, 711. This Court has plenary, independent and nondeferential authority to re-examine a trial court's legal rulings.
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|