CASE NOTE TORT LAW—Overruled! Wyoming’s Novel Interpretation of the Wrongful Death Act’s Personal Representative; In re Estate of Johnson, 231 P.3d 873 (Wyo. 2010) Dustin Joseph Richards * INTRODUCTION Wyoming’s Wrongful Death Act (Act), as old as the state itself, requires a personal representative to bring a wrongful death action. 1 However, the Act never expressly defines the term “personal representative” or specifies where to find a definition. 2 Courts and practitioners therefore have looked to Wyoming’s Probate Code to fill this legislative gap and provide the definition of and process for appointing the personal representative. 3 Potential personal representatives simply petition probate courts for appointment pursuant to the well-developed process provided by the Probate Code and then bring a wrongful death action as a civil matter. 4 * Candidate for J.D., University of Wyoming, 2012. Many thanks to Professor Bridgeman, Professor Delaney, and the editors of the Wyoming Law Review for your insightful comments and guidance. Special thanks to my family and friends for your continued support and patience throughout this process. 1 See WYO. STAT. ANN. § 1-38-102(a) (2010) (“Every [wrongful death] action shall be brought by and in the name of the personal representative of the deceased person.”); 1871 Wyo. Sess. Laws 89 (“Every [wrongful death] action shall be brought by and in the name of the personal representative of such deceased person.”); Ashley v. Read Const. Co., 195 F. Supp. 727, 728 (D. Wyo. 1961) (“[O]nly the personal representative of the decedent may bring an action for her death caused by the wrongful act of another.”);Tuttle v. Short, 288 P. 524, 529 (Wyo. 1930) (“Under the Wyoming statutes it is plain that an action for death by wrongful act can be brought only by and in the name of the personal representative.”). Wyoming enacted its initial wrongful death statutes while it was a territory, nineteen years before becoming a state. See Debora A. Person, Wyoming Pre-Statehood Legal Materials: An Annotated Bibliography, 7 WYO. L. REV. 50, 60 (2007) (describing how Wyoming became a state in 1890). 2 Grant Harvey Lawson, Comment, Reconciling the Wyoming Wrongful Death Act with the Wyoming Probate Code: The Legislature’s Wake-up Call for Clarification,7 WYO. L. REV. 409, 415 (2007). 3 See In re Estate of Johnson, 231 P.3d 873, 882 (Wyo. 2010) (Hill, J., dissenting) (“For so long as the wrongful death statute has existed in this state, there can be no legitimate doubt or ambiguity, whatsoever, that by its use of the phrase ‘personal representative,’ the legislature intended that it have the same meaning as that expressed in [the probate code].”); infra notes 13–24 and accompanying text (discussing the history of Wyoming wrongful death cases which incorporated the Probate Code in defining the personal representative). 4 See Jordan v. Delta Drilling Co., 541 P.2d 39, 42 (Wyo. 1975) (“The designation of an administrator is no more than a statutory device to provide a party for a civil action to collect damages and pay them over to the persons entitled.”), overruled by Wetering v. Eisele, 682 P.2d
Transcript
CASE NOTE
TORT LAW—Overruled! Wyoming’s Novel Interpretation of the Wrongful Death Act’s Personal Representative; In re Estate of Johnson, 231 P.3d 873 (Wyo. 2010)
Dustin Joseph Richards*
IntroductIon
Wyoming’s Wrongful Death Act (Act), as old as the state itself, requiresa personal representative to bring a wrongful death action.1 However, the Actnever expresslydefines the term“personal representative”or specifieswhere tofindadefinition.2CourtsandpractitionersthereforehavelookedtoWyoming’sProbateCodetofillthislegislativegapandprovidethedefinitionofandprocessfor appointing the personal representative.3 Potential personal representativessimplypetitionprobatecourtsforappointmentpursuanttothewell-developedprocessprovidedbytheProbateCodeandthenbringawrongfuldeathactionasacivilmatter.4
*CandidateforJ.D.,UniversityofWyoming,2012.ManythankstoProfessorBridgeman,Professor Delaney, and the editors of the Wyoming Law Review for your insightful commentsandguidance.Specialthankstomyfamilyandfriendsforyourcontinuedsupportandpatiencethroughoutthisprocess.
1 See Wyo. Stat. ann. § 1-38-102(a) (2010) (“Every [wrongful death] action shall bebroughtbyandinthenameofthepersonalrepresentativeofthedeceasedperson.”);1871Wyo.Sess.Laws89(“Every[wrongfuldeath]actionshallbebroughtbyandinthenameofthepersonalrepresentativeofsuchdeceasedperson.”);Ashleyv.ReadConst.Co.,195F.Supp.727,728(D.Wyo.1961)(“[O]nlythepersonalrepresentativeofthedecedentmaybringanactionforherdeathcausedbythewrongfulactofanother.”);Tuttlev.Short,288P.524,529(Wyo.1930)(“UndertheWyomingstatutesitisplainthatanactionfordeathbywrongfulactcanbebroughtonlybyandinthenameofthepersonalrepresentative.”).Wyomingenacteditsinitialwrongfuldeathstatuteswhile itwasa territory,nineteenyearsbeforebecominga state.SeeDeboraA.Person,Wyoming Pre-Statehood Legal Materials: An Annotated Bibliography, 7Wyo. L. rev.50,60(2007)(describinghowWyomingbecameastatein1890).
2 Grant Harvey Lawson, Comment, Reconciling the Wyoming Wrongful Death Act with the Wyoming Probate Code: The Legislature’s Wake-up Call for Clarification, 7Wyo. L. rev. 409,415(2007).
3 See In reEstateof Johnson,231P.3d873,882(Wyo.2010) (Hill, J.,dissenting) (“Forsolongasthewrongfuldeathstatutehasexistedinthisstate,therecanbenolegitimatedoubtorambiguity,whatsoever,thatbyitsuseofthephrase‘personalrepresentative,’thelegislatureintendedthat ithavethesamemeaningas thatexpressed in[theprobatecode].”); infra notes13–24andaccompanyingtext(discussingthehistoryofWyomingwrongfuldeathcaseswhichincorporatedtheProbateCodeindefiningthepersonalrepresentative).
4 See Jordanv.DeltaDrillingCo.,541P.2d39,42(Wyo.1975)(“Thedesignationofanadministrator is nomore than a statutorydevice toprovide a party for a civil action to collectdamagesandpay themover to thepersonsentitled.”),overruled byWeteringv.Eisele,682P.2d
However, in deciding In re Estate of Johnson, the Wyoming SupremeCourt overruled Bircher v. Foster with the result that this predictable, reliableinterpretationoftheActnolongerapplies.5Thiscase involvedadisputebetweenLarryJohnson’ssurvivingwifeandhisfatherastowhoshouldbringanactionfor his wrongful death.6 Since his father submitted the initial petition forappointmentasaprobateactionandtheProbateCodegrantsasurvivingspousehighestpreference,thecourtshouldhaveappointedLarryJohnson’swifeashispersonalrepresentative.7ThiscasenotearguestheProbateCodeshouldcontroltheappointmentofapersonalrepresentative inawrongfuldeathactionasthelegislatureintendedbecausetheProbateCodeprovidespredictabilitythroughitsstructureandcomportswithalonghistoryofWyomingcaselaw.8
This case note begins by outlining the development and current state ofWyoming’sWrongfulDeathAct.9Inaddition,thiscasenotetracestheperiodoflegislativeactivityinthelate1970sandearly1980sfromtheAct’srelocationtotheProbateCodeandsubsequentreturntotheCivilCode.10Thiscasenotethensurveys previous wrongful death cases inWyoming supporting the contentionthat courts appointing the wrongful death action’s “personal representative”should follow theProbateCode.11Byanalyzing theplain languageof theAct,examining legislativehistory, reviewingWyoming case law, andunderstandingotherstates’wrongfuldeathactions,thiscasenoteassertstheJohnson courtshouldhaverequiredthelowercourttofollowtheProbateCodeinappointingapersonalrepresentativeinawrongfuldeathaction.12
1055(Wyo.1984),as recognized in Johnson,231P.3dat879;Bircherv.Foster,378P.2d901,903(Wyo.1963)(“[T]hereisnoauthorityinthisStateeitherbystatuteordecisionwherebyadistrictcourt,unlesssittinginprobate,wouldbeauthorizedtoappoint...thepersonalrepresentative...forthepurposesofadeathaction.”),overruled by Johnson,231P.3dat879;infra notes37–42andaccompanyingtext(explainingWyoming’sProbateCode).
5 See Johnson,231P.3dat879(majorityopinion)(“Bircherisoverruledprospectivelytotheextentthatitrequiresawrongfuldeathactiontobebroughtinprobatecourt,andtotheextentthatitrequiresawrongfuldeathpersonalrepresentativetobetheadministratororexecutorofthedecedent’sestateinprobate.”);supra notes3–4andaccompanyingtext.
6 Johnson,231P.3dat875.
7 SeeWyo. Stat. ann. § 2-4-201(a) (2010) (“Therelativesofthedeceased...areentitledtoadministerinthefollowingorder:i)Thesurvivinghusbandorwife;ii)Thechildren;iii)Thefatherormother.”);PetitionforAppointmentofPersonalRepresentativeforPurposesofaWrongfulDeathActionPursuanttoW.S.§1-38-102at1,In reEstateofJohnson,ProbateNo.08-43(UintaCnty.Dist.Ct.Sep.18,2008).
8 See Lawson,supra note2,at419 (“Withoutacleardefinitionof‘personalrepresentative’locatedintheWrongfulDeathActorelsewhereintheCivilCode,itappearsthatpresentlytheonlyoptionistorefertotheProbateCode.”);infra notes119–71andaccompanyingtext.
9 See infra notes13–42andaccompanyingtext.
10 See infra notes25–36andaccompanyingtext.
11 See infra notes43–66andaccompanyingtext.
12 See infra notes119–71andaccompanyingtext.
242 WyomIng LaW revIeW Vol.11
Background
Wyoming’s Wrongful Death Act
Originally,undercommonlaw,anindividualcouldnotbringacivilactionagainstsomeoneforcausingthedeathofanother.13BypassingLordCampbell’sAct in 1846, the English Parliament created the first action to benefit peopleinjuredby thewrongfuldeathofa relative.14Thiscreateda statutoryright forsomeoneinjuredbythewrongfuldeathofanothertobringacivilactionagainstan individual responsible for that death.15 Many United States jurisdictionsfollowedsuit,enactingsimilarly-wordedstatutesbasedontheEnglishAct.16Tothisday,manystates’wrongfuldeathstatutessharesimilarlanguage,terms,andphrasing—evidencingtheircommonorigin.17In1871,andwhilestillaterritory,WyomingpatterneditsWrongfulDeathActafterWestVirginia’sstatute,whichwassimilartoLordCampbell’sAct.18
14 22Aam. Jur. 2dDeath §4 (2010);thomaS m. cooLey, the eLementS of tortS 93(1895).MassachusettspassedastatuterelatedtowrongfuldeathsixyearsbeforeLordCampbell’sAct, but it only provided a “quasi-criminal remedy,” not a right to bring a civil action. JohnFabianWitt,From Loss of Services to Loss of Support: The Wrongful Death Statutes, the Origins of Modern Tort Law, and the Making of the Nineteenth-Century Family,25LaW & Soc. InquIry717,733–34(2000).
15 12am. Jur. Trials317§2(2010).
16 22Aam. Jur. 2dDeath§4(2010);cooLey,supra note14,at93(“MostofthelegislationinAmericaonthesubjectismodeledafter[LordCampbell’s][A]ct.”);francIS B. tIffany, death By WrongfuL act5,21(1893)(“[LordCampbell’sAct]hasservedasthemodelforsimilaractsinmostofthestatesinthiscountry.”).ForadetaileddiscussionontheearlydevelopmentofwrongfuldeathintheUnitedStates,seegenerally Stuart m. SpeISer et aL., recovery for WrongfuL death(3ded.1992).
17 See 22Aam. Jur. 2dDeath§4(2010)(notingLordCampbell’sActwascloselyfollowedbymanywrongfuldeathstatutesintheUnitedStates).
18 See Corkillv.Knowles,955P.2d438,441(Wyo.1998)(“The[WrongfulDeath][A]ctwassimilartoLordCampbell’sActandwasalmostanexactcopyofWestVirginia’swrongfuldeathlaw.”);Lawson,supra note2,at413–14(discussingtheoriginsofWyoming’sWrongfulDeathAct).
WhiletheActhasneverexplicitlydefinedorprovidedcriteriafortheappointmentofthepersonalrepresentative,theoriginalActexpresslyincorporatedtheProbateCode by distributing the proceeds of a wrongful death action according tothe Probate Code’s intestate succession provision.20 Since 1871, theWyomingStateLegislaturesubstantiallymodifiedtheAct’swordingfourtimes,eachtimechangingwhocanbenefitfromtheactionorhowtodetermineandawardtheproceeds.21Thesechangesresultedinamoreexpansivedistributionofdamages,allowinganypotentialbeneficiarytheopportunitytoprovedamagesbeforeacourtorjury.22Thelegislaturealsoprotectedtheproceedsofawrongfuldeathactionfrombeingusedtosatisfyanydebtofthedeceased.23WhilethesemodificationsremovedexpressincorporationsoftheProbateCode,thelegislaturepreservedtheoriginallanguageidentifyingthepersonalrepresentativeasthesolepartytobringawrongfuldeathaction,withoutfurtherclarification.24
20 See Wyo. Stat. ann.§1-38-102;1871Wyo.Sess.Laws89;see also In reEstateofJohnson,231P.3d873,879n.1(Wyo.2010)(“In1963,whenBircherissued,therewasaconnectionwithinthe wrongful death act to the intestacy statutes.”). Specifically, the Act stated: “[T]he amountrecoveredineverysuchactionshallbedistributedtothepartiesandintheproportionsprovidedbylaw,inrelationtothedistributionofpersonalestatesleftbypersonsdyingintestate.”1871Wyo.Sess.Laws89.
21 See 1973Wyo.Sess.Laws149(modifyingthedistributionofproceedsfromawrongfuldeathactionjudgmentandaddingasectionprotectingsuchproceedsfromthedecedent’screditors);1947Wyo.Sess.Laws156–57(rewordingtheprovisionforhowdamagesshouldbedeterminedanddistributed);1939Wyo.Sess.Laws166–67(addingtotheprovisionconcerningthedistributionandawardofdamages);1909Wyo.Sess.Laws5(rewordingtheprovisionrelatingtodamages).
22 See Wyo. Stat. ann.§1-38-102(c)(“Everypersonforwhosebenefitsuchactionisbroughtmayprovehisrespectivedamages,andthecourtorjurymayawardsuchpersonthatamountofdamagestowhichitconsiderssuchpersonentitled.”).
24 See Lawson,supra note2,at415(“NotonlydoestheWrongfulDeathActfailtoprovideadefinitionof ‘personal representative,’ itdoesnotpoint to another locationwhereonecanbefound.”);supranotes18–23andaccompanyingtext.
25 See infra notes27–35andaccompanyingtext.
244 WyomIng LaW revIeW Vol.11
Code.26Aspartofalargereffortin1977toupdatetheentireWyomingCode,thelegislaturerenumberedthewrongfuldeathstatutes.27In1979,thelegislaturepassedanotherhousekeepingact renumbering thewrongfuldeath statutesandmoving them fromtheCivilCode to theProbateCode.28The followingyear,thelegislatureonceagainrenumberedthewrongfuldeathstatutesbutkeptthemwithintheProbateCode.29
In1981,the legislaturemistakenlyrepealedtheWrongfulDeathAct fromtheProbateCode,believingitwasduplicatedintheCivilCode.30Butthestatuteswerenotduplicative, sinceearlier legislationhadcompletelymovedtheAct totheProbateCode.31Thelegislaturesoonrealizedithadrepealedallinstancesofwrongfuldeathandsubsequentlypassedacorrectiveactin1982thatattemptedtovoidits1981repealofthewrongfuldeathstatutesintheProbateCode.32Sincethe1981repealwas legallyeffectiveand thereforenotvoidable, the legislaturerecreatedtheWrongfulDeathActoutsidetheProbateCode,intheCivilCode.33However,theWyominglegislatureclearlystateditsolelyintendedtocorrecttheinadvertentrepealoftheActintheProbateCodeanddidnotintendtochangeexistingwrongfuldeathcaselaworinterpretationoftheAct.34Absentthemistakenrepealin1981,theActwouldcurrentlyexistintheProbateCode,asoriginallyintendedbythe1979legislation.35Sincethelegislatureclearlyintendedwrongful
26 See In reEstateofJohnson,231P.3d873,878(Wyo.2010)(“Ofprimarysignificanceisthattheseparatepurposesofthe[probateandwrongfuldeath]statutesareentirelydistinct.”);infra notes27–35andaccompanyingtext.
27 1977Wyo.Sess.Laws771,916–17(passingtheactsolely“toeliminateobsoleteorfullyexecuted statutes, to conform conflicting statutes, to eliminate duplicitous or archaic language;conformingthenumberingofsectionsandsubsectionstoauniformnumberingsystem”).
32 1982Wyo.Sess.Laws93.Only if the legislaturecouldnotvoidthe1981repealofthestatutesintheprobatecodewouldtheactcreatewrongfuldeathstatutesintheCivilCode.Id.at94.
deathcase law to remainunaffected,decisionsbefore andafter thisperiodaremorerelevantinaddressinginterpretationthaninferringastatute’spurposebyitssectionnumber.36
“Personal Representative” in the Wyoming Code
Wyoming’sProbateCodedefinesadecedent’spersonalrepresentativeastheestate’sexecutororadministrator.37Italsoprovidestheprocedureforappointinga personal representative to represent a personwhodies intestate.38TheCodeprioritizescertainrelationships,grantingthesurvivingspousehighestconsideration,then children, followed by the decedent’s parents.39 Upon appointment, thepersonalrepresentativemustpublishnoticeinordertoprovideinterestedpartiesthe opportunity to contest the appointment.40 Specifically, the representativemust send a copyof thisnotice to the surviving spouse and children.41Otherreferencestoadecedent’s“personalrepresentative”intheWyomingCodedonotspecifycriteriaorauthorityforappointmentbutincorporatetheProbateCodebyassociatingthetermwithestatefiduciaries,suchasanadministratororexecutor.42
36 See Heidi L. Neuendorf, Note, The Judicial Impediment on Legislative Lawmaking in Stratmeyerv.Stratmeyer,44S.d. L. rev.115,139(1999)(statingifthelegislaturedisagreedwiththecourt’sinterpretationofastatute,itwouldpassacorrectingamendment);supra notes27–35andaccompanyingtext.
37 Wyo. Stat. ann. § 2-1-301 (“‘Personal representative’ includes executor andadministrator.”);id.§2-3-802(“‘Fiduciary’meansapersonalrepresentativeoratrustee.Thetermincludesanexecutor,administrator,successorpersonalrepresentative,specialadministratorandapersonperformingsubstantiallythesamefunction.”).
38 Id.§§2-4-201(specifyingaprioritylistofrelativesofthedeceasedentitledtoadminister),-203(definingexceptionstothoseentitledtoadministerbyreasonofincompetence),-205(describinghowtopetitionthecourtforappointmentasadministrator),-206(allowinginterestedpartiestocontest andoppose apetition for appointment),2-7-205 (requiringnoticeof administrationofestatestothesurvivingspouseandallheirsatlawofthedecedent).
42 See id. §§ 1-1-109 (“‘Claimant’ means a natural person, including the personalrepresentativeofadeceasedperson.”),1-43-103(“Theprivilegeunderthissectionmaybeclaimedbyarepresentativeofthepartyorbyaparty,hisguardianorconservator,thepersonalrepresentativeofadeceasedparty,orthesuccessor.”),4-10-103(“‘Fiduciary’meansatrusteeunderatestamentaryorothertrust,anexecutor,administrator,orpersonalrepresentativeofadecedent’sestate,oranyotherpartyincludingatrustadvisororatrustprotector,whoisactinginafiduciarycapacityforanyperson,trustorestate.”),12-9-102(“‘Designatedmember’...alsoincludestheappointedandqualifiedpersonalrepresentativeandthetestamentarytrusteeofadeceasedindividualowninganownership interest inadistributor’sbusiness.”),15-1-101(“‘Person’meansany individual,firm,partnership,corporationorotherbusinessentity,ortheexecutor,administrator,trustee,receiver,assigneeorpersonal representative thereof.”), 17-16-850 (“‘Director’ or ‘officer’ includes, unless
246 WyomIng LaW revIeW Vol.11
Prior Case Law
Generally,statesgrantjurisdictiontoaspecialcourttohandleadecedent’saffairs.43 Accordingly, Wyoming established a “probate court,” a district courtsittinginprobatethatoverseesmattersrelatingtoadeceasedperson.44Thestatutealso grants a probate court jurisdiction over other civil actions that a districtcourtwouldtypicallyhear.45SincetheWrongfulDeathActrequiresapersonalrepresentativewithoutprovidingadefinitionorappointmentprocess,attorneysandcourtsinWyominghaveconsistentlyreliedontheProbateCode’sprovisionsand consequentlypetitionedprobate courts for the appointment.46As early as
thecontextrequiresotherwise,theestateorpersonalrepresentativeofadirectororofficer.”),-860(“‘Relatedperson’means...[a]domesticorforeign...[i]ndividual,trustorestateforwhomorofwhichthedirectorisatrustee,guardian,personalrepresentativeorlikefiduciary.”), 33-30-202(“‘Person’meansanyindividual...whetherornotactingasaprincipal,trustee,fiduciary,receiver,or as anyotherkindof legal orpersonal representative.”), 34-13-114 (“‘Personal representative’means an executor, administrator, successor personal representative or special administrator ofa decedent’s estate or a person legally authorized toperform substantially the same function.”),34.1-5-102(“‘Successorofabeneficiary’meansapersonwhosucceedstosubstantiallyalloftherightsofabeneficiarybyoperationoflaw,including...anadministrator,executor,[and]personalrepresentative.”),39-19-101(“‘Personalrepresentative’meanstheexecutor,administratorortrusteeof the estate of the decedent, or, if there is no executor appointed, qualified and acting withinWyoming,thenanypersoninactualorconstructivepossessionofanypropertyofthedecedent.”).
43 31am. Jur.2dExecutors and Administrators§90 (2010) (“Inmany states, jurisdictionof the administration of estates is given to special courts, designated by such names asprobate...courts.”).
44 See Wyo. Stat. ann. § 2-2-101 (“[D]istrict courts of the state have exclusive originaljurisdictionofallmattersrelatingtothe...grantingofletterstestamentaryandofadministration....Thecourtgrantingthelettershasexclusivejurisdictionofallmatterstouchingthesettlementanddistributionoftheestatesforwhichlettershavebeengranted.”).
46 See Corkill v. Knowles, 955 P.2d 438, 443 (Wyo. 1998) (“The statute requires everywrongfuldeathactiontobebroughtbyandinthenameofthedecedent’spersonalrepresentative,i.e., theexecutororadministratorof thedecedent’sestate.”);Weteringv.Eisele,682P.2d1055,1062(Wyo.1984)(“Wefurtherholdthatthewrongfuldeathactionnowisbroughtbythepersonalrepresentativeinhiscapacityasadministratorofthedecedent’sestate.”);Jordanv.DeltaDrillingCo.,541P.2d39,42(Wyo.1975)(“[T]headministratororexecutor[oftheestateasappointedundertheprobatecode]mustbringtheaction.”), overruled byWetering,682P.2d1055,as recognized in In re Estate of Johnson, 231 P.3d 873, 879 (Wyo. 2010); Bircher v. Foster, 378 P.2d 901,902–03(Wyo.1963)(“[T]hereisnoauthorityinthisStateeitherbystatuteordecisionwherebyadistrictcourt,unlesssittinginprobate,wouldbeauthorizedtoappointafatherasthepersonalrepresentativeofadeceasedsonforthepurposesofadeathaction.”),overruled by Johnson,231P.3dat879;ColiseumMotorCo.v.Hester,3P.2d105,105(Wyo.1931)(“This[wrongfuldeath]actionwasbroughtby[the]administratrixoftheestate.”);Lawson,supra note2,at415(“Withoutacleardefinitionof‘personalrepresentative’locatedintheWrongfulDeathActorelsewhereintheCivilCode,itappearsthatpresentlytheonlyoptionistorefertotheProbateCode.”).
2011 caSe note 247
1931,theWyomingSupremeCourtstatedinColiseum Motor Co. v. Hesterthatapersonalrepresentativeforawrongfuldeathactionisthesameastheadministratoroftheestatebutactsasatrusteeforthebeneficiariesinbringingthecivilaction.47Inthatcase, thecourtemphasizedthatwhile thewrongfuldeathaction isnotbrought to benefit the decedent’s estate, the estate’s administrator is the partyrequiredtobringtheaction.48
The HonorableV.J.Tidball authored a 1947 article explaining that whilethe wrongful death statutes lie outside the Probate Code, the probate courtappointstherepresentativetopursuethatcivilaction.49Therepresentativethenpursuesthewrongfuldeathactioninthedistrictcourt,outsideofprobate.50Uponcompletingtheaction,therepresentativereportsbacktotheprobatecourt,whichthendischargeshimofhisduties.51Whetherthedecedentnamesanadministratorpriortodeathordiesintestate,theprobatecourtappointstherepresentativewhoperformstworoles—oneastherepresentativeoftheestateandanotherasatrusteeforthebeneficiariesinawrongfuldeathaction.52WhileJudgeTidballfocusesonhowtherepresentativedistributesawrongfuldeathaction’sproceeds,hereiteratesthewidelyheldbeliefbypractitionersatthetimethattheProbateCodecontrolstheappointmentofthepersonalrepresentative.53
Sixteen years later in 1963, the Wyoming Supreme Court reinforced itspositioninBircherv. Foster,whichtheJohnson majorityoverruledin2010.54InBircher,thecourtheldtheexecutororadministratorofadecedent’sestatewastheonlypersonwhomaybringawrongfuldeathaction.55Thedecisionspecifically
47 See 3P.2dat108(“Theadministratoractsbutinthecapacityofatrustee.”).
48 Id.
49 V.J.Tidball,Probate Jurisdiction in Wrongful Death Actions,2Wyo. L.J.109,109(1947)(“[T]heonlyjurisdictiontheDistrictCourt,sittingasaProbateCourt,hasinsuchactionsistoappointanadministratororexecutor,fixhisbondanddischargehimwhenhereportstotheProbateCourtthathehasperformedhisdutiesregardingsuchaction.”).
50 Id.
51 Id.
52 Id.(“ThepersonalrepresentativeappointedbytheProbateCourtactsinadualcapacity.He acts as executor or administrator of the estate under the jurisdiction of the Probate Courtandheactsasatrustee inthewrongfuldeathaction. . .entirelyoutsidethe jurisdictionoftheProbateCourt.”).
53 See id.at109–10.
54 See Bircherv.Foster,378P.2d901,902(Wyo.1963), overruled by In Re EstateofJohnson,231P.3d873,879(Wyo.2010).
55 Bircher, 378P.2dat902 (“[T]his court in thepasthasbeen consistent inholding thattheonlypersonwhocouldbringanactionforwrongfuldeathwasthepersonalrepresentativeofthedeceased,theexecutororadministratorofdecedent’sestate.Weseenoreasonwhytheseviewsshouldnowbealtered.”).
In 1975, the court, in Jordan v. Delta Drilling Co., allowed the actingadministratoroftheestatetobringawrongfuldeathactionwhileacknowledgingthe Wrongful Death Act’s placement outside the Probate Code.57 Despite theAct’splacementintheCivilCode,thecourtreasoneditmustappointsomeoneasthepersonalrepresentativeofthedecedentandtheProbateCodeprovidestheappropriateprocesstodoso.58Twoyears laterandjustasthe legislaturebeganrenumbering statutes, the court again, in DeHerrera v. Herrera, reinforced theAct’srelianceontheProbateCode.59Inthatcase,thecourtheldthatwhiletheActisintheCivilCode,theProbateCodecontrolstheappointmentofthewrongfuldeathaction’spersonalrepresentative.60
In 1984, following the period of statutory revisions discussed earlier, theWyomingSupremeCourtstated,inWetering v. Eisele,theadministratorofthedecedent’s estate appropriately brought the wrongful death action.61 In 1998thecourtagain, inCorkill v. Knowles,expressly incorporatedtheProbateCodebyequatingthewrongfuldeathaction’spersonalrepresentativetotheexecutoror administrator of the decedent’s estate.62The court noted the Probate Codecontained significant definitions, which provide that a personal representativeincludesanadministratoroftheestateofanintestatedecedent.63ThefollowingyeartheWyomingSupremeCourtwentevenfurtherandheld,inButler v. Halstead,Wyoming’sProbateCodeidentifiesthewrongfuldeathaction’sbeneficiaries.64As
56 See id.at903(statingadistrictcourtnotsittinginprobatelackstheauthoritytoappointapersonalrepresentativeforthepurposeofbringingawrongfuldeathaction).
57 541P.2d39,41(Wyo.1975)(“Theplaintiff-appellantwasappointed,qualifiedandistheactingadministratrixoftheestate.”),overruled byWeteringv.Eisele,682P.2d1055(Wyo.1984),as recognized in Johnson,231P.3dat879.
58 Jordan,541P.2dat42 (“[D]esignationofanadministrator isnomore thana statutorydevicetoprovideaparty foracivilactiontocollectdamagesandpaythemover tothepersonsentitled.”); see, e.g.,Note,Minor’s Rights in a Wrongful Death Suit, 10gonz. L. rev. 226,228(1974)(addressingtheconceptuallyconfusingroleofthepersonalrepresentativeinwrongfuldeathactionsbecausesheactsbothasatrusteeforthebeneficiariesoftheactionandasafiduciaryfortheestate).
59 DeHerrerav.Herrera,565P.2d479,482(Wyo.1977).
60 Id.
61 682 P.2d at 1062 (“[T]he wrongful death action now is brought by the personalrepresentativeinhiscapacityasadministratorofthedecedent’sestate.”); see supra notes25–36andaccompanyingtext(discussingthestatutoryrevisions).
64 See 770P.2d698,700(Wyo.1989)(“[T]hepersonsforwhosebenefitawrongfuldeathactionisbroughtareallofthosepersonsidentifiedin§2-4-201[oftheProbateCode].”).
2011 caSe note 249
inearlierdecisions,theButler courtrestrictedtheProbateCodefromapplyingtotheproceedsfromawrongfuldeathaction,astheWrongfulDeathActcontainsprovisions for distributing awarded damages.65 This long history of wrongfuldeathcasesinWyomingdemonstratesaconsistentpracticeofincorporatingtheProbateCode’sdefinitionsandprovisionstowrongfuldeathactions,particularlywhenappointingthepersonalrepresentative.66
Other States’ Wrongful Death Acts
Many United States jurisdictions enacted wrongful death statutes aroundthe same time as Wyoming and based commonly on Lord Campbell’s Act.67Accordingly, other states’ interpretations and case law are instructive whendiscussingaterm’splainmeaningandalegislature’sintentincreatingthestatute.68Themajorityofstatewrongfuldeathstatutesusetermsreferencingthedecedent’sestate suchas administrator, executor,orpersonal representative.69Particularly,the District of Columbia and West Virginia’s wrongful death statutes mirrorWyoming’slanguagespecifyingawrongfuldeathaction“shallbebroughtbyandin thenameof thepersonal representativeof thedeceasedperson.”70Eighteenstatesalsorequirethedecedent’spersonalrepresentativetobringwrongfuldeathactionsandinsomeinstancesalternativelyallowasurvivingspousetodirectlybringtheaction.71Eightstatesareevenmorespecificandexpresslyreferenceprobatecodesor incorporatereferencestothedecedent’sestate intheirwrongfuldeathstatutes.72Intheabsenceofaspecificstatutorylinktotheprobatecode,courts
65 Id. (stating the wrongful death action’s award damages are controlled by theWrongfulDeathAct,notbytheProbateCode).
66 See supra notes46–65andaccompanyingtext.
67 See SpeISer et aL.,supranote16,§1:9(discussingthehistoryofAmericanwrongfuldeathstatutes); supra notes18–35 and accompanying text (explaining thedevelopmentofWyoming’swrongfuldeathstatutes).
68 See generally SpeISer et aL.,supranote16,atapp.A(providingacomplete,detailedlistingofstatewrongfuldeathstatutes).
69 See SpeISer et aL., supra note16,§11:28(“Inroughlyhalfofthestatesthewrongfuldeathactprovides:‘Everysuchactionshall bebroughtbyandinnameofthepersonalrepresentative.’”).Additionally,thefederaldeathstatutesdesignatethepersonalrepresentative“asthepartyplaintiff ”andgeneralmaritimelawgrantsthepersonalrepresentativestandingtosuefor“thenonstatutoryremedyforwrongfuldeath.”Id.§11:29.
70 d.c. code § 16-2702 (2010); accord W. va. code ann. § 55-7-6 (2010) (using thephrase“suchpersonalrepresentative”).
71 See SpeISer et aL., supranote16,atapp.A(detailingwrongfuldeathstatutesforAlabama,Alaska,Arkansas,Florida,Illinois,Indiana,Kentucky,Nebraska,NewMexico,NewYork,Ohio,Oklahoma,Oregon,Pennsylvania,SouthDakota,Vermont,Virginia,andWashington).
72 See, e.g., arIz. rev. Stat. ann. § 12-612 (2010) (“‘[P]ersonal representative’ includesanypersontowhomletterstestamentaryorofadministrationaregranted.”);mIch. comp. LaWS§600.2922(2010)(“Every[wrongfuldeath]action...shallbebroughtby,andinthenameof,thepersonalrepresentativeoftheestateofthedeceased.”);SpeISer et aL., supranote16,atapp.A
250 WyomIng LaW revIeW Vol.11
inthesejurisdictionsconsistentlyinterprettheterm“personalrepresentative”torefertotheexecutororadministratoroftheestate.73Forexample,inafederalWestVirginiacasedecidedin2007,thedistrictcourtstatedawrongfuldeathaction’s“personal representative must generally be the administrator of the estate.”74Similarly,ina2010decisionfromtheDistrictofColumbia,thecourtconcludedthatinthecontextofawrongfuldeathaction,theterm“personalrepresentativeisstrictlyconstrued...tomeanonlythedecedent’sexecutororadministrator.”75
The remaining twenty-two states’ wrongful death statutes are less similarto Wyoming’s Wrongful Death Act and are generally less restrictive than themajority of jurisdictions, allowing alternative plaintiffs or providing detaileddefinitions of terms.76 However, as in the majority of states, references to theexecutor, administrator, and representative in the context of wrongful deathactions consistently refer to the decedent’s estate.77 For example, Georgia andRhode Island explicitly allow a surviving spouse, child, or parent to bring anaction for wrongful deathbut otherwise require the administrator or executor
(listing completewrongfuldeath statutes forArizona,Kansas,Maine,Massachusetts,Michigan,Montana, New Jersey, and South Carolina). Maine’s wrongful death statute exists in the state’sprobatecode.me. rev. Stat.tit.18,§2-804(2010).
73 See, e.g., Hatasv.Partin,175So.2d759,761(Ala.1965)(“Thewords‘personalrepresentative’. . .canonlymeantheexecutororadministratoroftheinjuredtestatororintestate.”);Greshamv.Strickland,784So.2d578,580(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2001) (“[T]heright tobringapunitivedamagesclaimforwrongfuldeathbelongsexclusivelytothepersonalrepresentativeoftheestate.”);In reEstateofHutman,705N.E.2d1060,1065(Ind.Ct.App.1999)(“[T]hedeterminationofwhobecomes a special administratordoesnot rest solelyuponwhowins theproverbial race tothe courthouse. Rather, the person chosen must also be qualified under the [Probate Code].”);Bennettv.Nicholas,250S.W.3d673,675(Ky.Ct.App.2007)(“[A]wrongful-deathactioncanonlybebroughtbytheestate’slawfulrepresentative,eithertheexecutororadministrator.”);Henkelv.Hood,156P.2d790,794(N.M.1945)(Bickley,J.,concurringspecially)(“WhentheLegislatureemployedthephrase‘personalrepresentative’theymeantexecutororadministratoroftheestateofthedeceased.”);Ramseyv.Neiman,634N.E.2d211,214(Ohio1994)(“[Wrongfuldeathactions]mustbebroughtinthenameofapersonappointedbyacourttobetheadministrator,executor,orpersonalrepresentativeofthedecedent’sestate.”);SpeISer et aL.,supra note16,§11:30(“Itisalsoaprinciplethatapersonalrepresentativemusthavebeenvalidlyandlegallyappointedtoadministerthedecedent’sestate...inordertobringawrongfuldeathaction.”).
76 See SpeISer et aL.,supra note16,atapp.A(detailingwrongfuldeathstatutesforCalifornia,Colorado,Connecticut,Delaware,Georgia,Hawaii,Idaho,Iowa,Louisiana,Maryland,Minnesota,Mississippi,Missouri,Nevada,NewHampshire,NorthCarolina,NorthDakota,Rhode Island,Tennessee,Texas,Utah,andWisconsin);infra notes77–82andaccompanyingtext.
77 See, e.g., Isaac v.MountSinaiHosp., 557A.2d116,117 (Conn.1989) (“[Awrongfuldeathaction]maybemaintainedonlybyanexecutororadministratorofanestate.”);Youngv.Marshburn, 180 S.E.2d 43, 44 (N.C. Ct. App. 1971) (“[Only] the executor, administrator, orcollectorofanestatecanmaintainanactionforwrongfuldeath.”);SpeISer et aL.,supra note16,§11:30 (“It is alsoaprinciple that apersonal representativemusthavebeenvalidlyand legallyappointedtoadministerthedecedent’sestate...inordertobringawrongfuldeathaction.”).
2011 caSe note 251
oftheestatetobringtheaction.78Twelvestateshavemoreliberallyconstructedstatutes,allowingarangeofinterestedpartiesorbeneficiariestobringawrongfuldeathaction.79Delaware’sstatute,inparticular,doesnotidentifywhomaybringa wrongful death action but was interpreted in 1985 to allow the decedent’spersonalrepresentativeornamedbeneficiariesasplaintiffs.80NewHampshireisuniquebecauseitalsoallowsanyinterestedpartytoinitiateanactionbutrequiresthatanappointedadministratorpursuetheaction.81Lastly,fourstateshavethemost complete and detailed wrongful death statutes—providing priority lists,criteria for appointment, and giving first priority to the surviving spouse andchildrenoverthesurvivingparents,similartoWyoming’sProbateCode.82
As this survey demonstrates, in states with wrongful death statutes usingthe term “personal representative,” courts consistently relate the term to theadministrator or executor of the decedent’s estate, therefore incorporating the
78 ga. code ann. § 51-4-5 (2010) (“When there is no [surviving spouse, children, orparents]entitledtobringanactionforthewrongfuldeathofadecedent...theadministratororexecutorofthedecedentmaybringanactionfor...thenextofkin.”);r.I. gen. LaWS§§10-7-1.2,-2(2010)(specifyingawrongfuldeathactionmustbebroughtbytheexecutororadministratorofthedeceased,butallowingparentstobringactionsforachild’swrongfuldeath).
80 SeedeL. code ann. tit.10,§3724(2010);Johnsonv.PhysiciansAnesthesiaServs.,P.A.,621F.Supp.908,916(Del.1985)(“[T]heCourtfindsthatactionsunderthenewwrongfuldeathact can be brought either by the personal representative ‘for the benefit of ’ the wife, husband,parents,andchildofadeceasedpersonorbythenamedbeneficiariesthemselves.”).
81 See n.h. rev. Stat. ann§556:19(2010)(“Anypersoninterestedintheestateofapersondeceasedmaybeginanactionasadministrator...iftheadministratorthenorafterwardappointedshall . . . prosecute it as plaintiff.”); see also Tanner v. King, 157 A.2d 643, 644 (N.H. 1960)(“[T]heLegislatureintheinterestofexpediencywantedtoallowanyinterestedpersontoinitiatesuchanactionprovideditbeprosecutedthereafterbyanadministrator.”).
82 See caL. cIv. proc. code § 377.60 (West 2010) (“A [wrongful death action] may beassertedby...thedecedent’spersonalrepresentative[orthe]decedent’ssurvivingspouse,domesticpartner,children,[or]thepersons...whowouldbeentitledtothepropertyofthedecedentbyintestatesuccession.”);coLo. rev. Stat.§13-21-201(2010)(allowingawrongfuldeathactiontobebroughtbythedeceased’ssurvivingspouse,heirorheirs,designatedbeneficiary,orparentsifthedeceasedisanunmarriedminor,inthatorder);SpeISer et aL.,supra note16,atapp.A(detailingwrongfuldeathstatutesforCalifornia,Colorado,NorthDakota,andTennessee).
The wife appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court, contending the trialcourt,sittinginprobate,abuseditsdiscretionbyignoringtheProbateCode.92Shearguedthetrialcourt’sdisregardoftheProbateCode’sprovisionsleavesajudge
83 See SpeISer et aL., supra note16,§11:28(“Undersuchaprovision,theactionmustbebroughtandmaintainedbythepersonalrepresentativeofthepersonforwhosedeaththedamagesaresought.”);supra notes69–75andaccompanyingtext.
84 See SpeISer et aL.,supra note16,§11:28(“Ontheotherhand,apersonalrepresentativeisnotentitledtobringadeathactionwheretherightofactionisgrantedtodesignatedpersonsotherthanthedecedent’spersonalrepresentative.”);supra notes76–82andaccompanyingtext.
85 See Morrisv.CMSOil&GasCo.,227P.3d325,333(Wyo.2010)(statingthelackofadditionalwordsclarifyingaterminastatuteisanintentionalactbythelegislatureanddoesnotprovideareasontoaddadditionalmeaning);Keatsv.State,64P.3d104,113(Wyo.2003)(“Wearenot...freetoignoreanywordthatthelegislaturehaschosentoplaceinastatute,andeverywordispresumedtohaveameaning.”); supra notes18–35andaccompanyingtext(explainingthedevelopmentandlegislativehistoryofWyoming’sWrongfulDeathAct).
86 In re EstateofJohnson,231P.3d873,876(Wyo.2010).
87 Id.
88 Brief of Appellant at 5, Johnson, 231 P.3d 873 (No. S-09-0040), 2009 WL 1701477[hereinafterAppellant’sBrief ].
freetoappointanyindividualasthepersonalrepresentative—regardlessofhisorherinterestinthecase—ultimatelyresultinginpetitionersracingtothecourtforappointment.93Inreply,thefathercontestedthewife’sstandingtochallengehisappointmentandbringtheappeal.94Additionally,hearguedtheProbateCodedoesnotgoverndecisionsinappointingapersonalrepresentativeforthepurposesof bringing a wrongful death claim, because the Wrongful Death Act fails todefinepersonalrepresentativeor torefer totheProbateCode.95Hecontendedsincethepersonalrepresentativeactsasafiduciaryforallthosewhocanbringaclaiminthewrongfuldeathaction,itdoesnotmatterwhoisappointed.96
Majority Opinion
Inwritingforthemajority,ChiefJusticeVoigt,joinedbyJusticesKiteandBurke,firstaddressedtheissueofthewife’sstandingtochallengetheappointment.97BoththemajorityanddissentagreedLarryJohnson’swifehadstandingduetoher substantial interest in theoutcomeof awrongful death actionbrought inhisname.98Asapotentialpersonalrepresentative,claimant,andmotheroftwootherpossibleclaimants,herpersonalstakeintheactionsufficientlywarrantedherchallenge.99Thecourtalsonotedthedecedent’sspouseisgiventhehighestpriorityasadministratorundertheProbateCode.100Havingdeterminedthewifehadstandingtoappealthedecision,thecourtfocusedthebulkofitsdiscussiononaddressingwhethertheProbateCodegovernstheappointmentofapersonalrepresentativeforthepurposesofbringingawrongfuldeathaction,andifitdoesnot,whatshould.101
In addressing this issue, themajority beganby listing the statutes at issuein the appeal, specifically pointing out that the Wrongful Death Act existsoutside and separate from theProbateCode.102Noting its “brevity,” the courtaddressed the Act’s susceptibility to inconsistent judicial interpretation as wellasthelegislativeconfusionintheearly1980sconcerningitsplaceandpurposeintheWyomingcode.103Thecourtultimatelyconcludedthattheprobatecourt
Sincethecourtdeterminedtheappointmentofapersonalrepresentativetopursueawrongfuldeathactionisadecisionthatshouldbemadeindependentof the Probate Code, the court suggested criteria and guidelines for courts tofollow.106Oddly,directlyafterproclaimingtheProbateCodeasnotcontrolling,thecourtsuggestedusingtheProbateCode’sprioritylist,particularlywhenapartycontests the appointment.107Thecourt stated this list reflects legislativepolicyin prioritizing significant relationships and is useful in considering a personalrepresentative’s suitability.108The court suggested thedistrict court should alsoconsider the petitioner’s financial and physical ability, geographic location,intentions, stake in the outcome, and family dynamics.109 Acknowledging thelackofguidancecontainedintheWrongfulDeathAct,thecourtwarnedagainstappointing a personal representative on solely a first-come, first-served basisandsuggestednotice,orthelackthereof,tootherpotentialpersonalrepresenta-tives provides an additional consideration in determining who the court willultimatelyappoint.110
Dissent
Justice Hill dissented, joined by Justice Golden.111 He contended thelegislaturealwaysintendedtheProbateCodetocontrolthepersonalrepresentativeappointment in a wrongful death action.112 He utilized legislative history inarguing the majority’s reasoning disregarded the clear intent of the WrongfulDeathActandlefttheappointmentofthepersonalrepresentativeinawrongful
104 Id.at880.
105 Id.
106 Id.at880–81.
107 Id.at881.
108 Id.
109 Id.
110 Id. (“The only test of who is appointed as personal representative, despite the lack ofguidancewithinthewrongfuldeathact,cannotsimplybewhofirstgetstothecourthouse.Thereissomehintintherecordthatjustsucharaceoccurredinthiscase.”).
111 Id.at882(Hill,J.,dissenting).
112 Id.at882.
2011 caSe note 255
deathactionuptothebroadandgeneraldiscretionofthedistrictcourt.113Thisessentially removed the reasonable andwidely-acceptedpriority list andnoticerequirementsspecifiedintheProbateCode.114Hestatednoreasonsupportstheproposition the father should have priority over the wife in a wrongful deathclaim.115Further,heacknowledgedthewifeclearlyholds“statutoryentitlement”and no extenuating circumstances exist that would otherwise disqualify herappointment.116JusticeHillconcludedbystatingtheprobatecourtshouldcontrola personal representative’s appointment.117 Furthermore, instead of remandingthecasetothelowercourtandorderingthedismissaloftheentireprobateaction,theWyomingSupremeCourtshouldhaveorderedthecourttoappointthewifeasthepersonalrepresentativeinthewrongfuldeathaction.118
anaLySIS
The Wyoming Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson overruled well-establishedWyomingcaselaw,leavingpractitionersguessingastohowWyomingcourtswillappointpersonalrepresentativesinfuturewrongfuldeathactions.119Thecourtrecognizedthatappointmentcannotrestsolelyonwhopetitionsthecourthousefirstandsuggestedthelowercourt,onremand,shouldconsidertheProbateCode’sprovisions.120However,bydivorcingtheProbateCodefromtheappointment process it traditionally controlled, theWyoming Supreme Courtopeneduptheterm“personalrepresentative”toexpansiveinterpretation,therebyallowingappointmentstostandbasedsolelyonacourt’sbroaddiscretion.121
This case note argues the obvious meaning of “personal representative”refers to therepresentativeofadecedent’sestateandWyoming’sProbateCodeprovidesthemostcompleteanddefinitestructureamongthestate’sstatutesforinterpretingtheterm.122Historically,thelegislatureandtheWyomingSupremeCourt supported the relationship between the statutes by specifically limiting
113 Id. at 882–83 (discussing the legislative histories of the wrongful death and probatestatutes,outofwhichthelegislatureappearstohaveunintentionallycreatedthedebateaddressedinthiscase).
114 Id.
115 Id.at883.
116 Id.
117 Id.
118 Id.
119 See id.at882–83(statingthemajorityopinionremovestheprioritygenerallygiventoaspousewhichdoesnothingbut“perpetuateirrational‘complexities’and...createnew‘ambiguities’wherenoneexist”).
120 Id.at881(majorityopinion).
121 See infra notes148–57andaccompanyingtext(discussingthehistoryofWyomingcaselawandtheWrongfulDeathActinrelationtotheProbateCode).
122 See infra notes127–39andaccompanyingtext.
256 WyomIng LaW revIeW Vol.11
particularProbateCodeprovisionsfromapplyingtowrongfuldeathactions.123Wyomingcaselawalsodemonstratescourtsandpractitionershavelongagreedthe probate court controls appointment.124 This case note argues the Johnson court—indivorcingtheProbateCodefromthewrongfuldeathstatute’spersonalrepresentative requirement—resurrected legal issues theProbateCodeandcaselaw had previously put to rest.125 Lastly, a comparison of the Johnson court’sdecisiontootherstates’wrongfuldeathstatutesanddecisionsdemonstratestheanomalycreatedinWyominglawbyopeningtheappointmentofthedecedent’spersonalrepresentativetoacourt’sbroaddiscretion.126
Plain Meaning
Wheninterpretingthelegislature’sintentbehindtheAct,thecourtincorrectlyemphasized the separate purposes served by the Civil and Probate Codes.127Instead, Wyoming’s well-established rules of statutory interpretation grant theplainandordinarymeaningofwordsthegreatestdeferencewhenattemptingtofollowlegislativeintentconcerningatermorphraseinastatute.128Theplainandordinary meaning of the term “personal representative” refers to the executor,administrator, or other court-appointed individual representing the decedent’sestate.129ConsideringothersectionsoftheWyomingcode,inwhichthepersonal
123 See infra notes140–47andaccompanyingtext.
124 See infra notes148–57andaccompanyingtext.
125 See infra notes 158–64 and accompanying text. See generally Jordan Wilder Connors,Treating Like Subdecisions Alike: The Scope of Stare Decisis as Applied to Judicial Methodology,108coLum. L. rev.681,688(2008)(“[S]taredecisis...reducestheamountofresearchandanalysisrequiredincasesanalogoustocasestheCourthasruledonbefore.”).
126 See infra notes165–71andaccompanyingtext.
127 Compare In reEstateofJohnson,231P.3d873,878(Wyo.2010)(“Ofprimarysignificanceis thattheseparatepurposesofthetwostatutesareentirelydistinct.”), with HalliburtonEnergyServs., Inc. v. Gunter, 167 P.3d 645, 649 n.3 (Wyo. 2007) (“[We realize] there is a differencebetweenprobateestatesandwrongfuldeathestates,andthatthestatutesgoverningthelatterareintheCivilCoderatherthantheprobatecode,butwebelievetheprobatecodestatuteisinstructiveindeterminingtheintentoftheCivilCodestatute.”).
128 See HorseCreekConservationDist.v.Stateex rel.Wyo.Att’yGen.,221P.3d306,312(Wyo.2009)(“[Thecourt’s]paramountconsiderationisthelegislature’sintentasreflectedintheplainandordinarymeaningofthewordsusedinthestatute.”);RMEPetrol.Co.v.Wyo.Dep’tofRevenue,150P.3d673,683(Wyo.2007)(statingifreasonablepersonsagreeonthemeaningwithconsistencyandpredictability,itisconsideredclearandunambiguousandtheplainlanguagemeaningholds);DeboraA.Person,Legislative Histories and the Practice of Statutory Interpretation in Wyoming,10Wyo. L. rev.559,566(2010)(explaininghownumerousWyomingSupremeCourtdecisionsshowthecourtshouldapplytheplainandordinarymeaningofaterm).
129 See Willisv.PanAm.Ref.Corp.,26F.Supp.990,993(D.Md.1939)(citingBriggsv.Walker,171U.S.466(1898)(“Ingivingtherightofactiontothepersonalrepresentativewithoutfurtherdescription[intheFederalEmployers’LiabilityAct],Congressevidentlyintendedtoconfertherightuponthelawfullyandproperlyappointedexecutororadministratorofthedecedent.”));unIf. proBate code § 1-201 (amended 2008) (“‘Personal representative’ includes executor,administrator, successorpersonal representative, special administrator, andpersonswhoperform
2011 caSe note 257
representativereferstotheadministrator,executor,orotherestaterepresentative,the legislature was mindful of this plain meaning.130 The concise statutorylanguageusedhereand,moreimportantly,thelackofsubsequentchangesdespitenumerousopportunitiesdemonstratethelegislatureunderstoodandacceptedtheplainmeaningofthetermasreferringtotheProbateCode.131
The legislature’s careful use of the definite article “the” in the Act furthersupportstheinterpretationthatthepersonalrepresentativereferstoapre-existingrepresentative of thedecedent.132At the time theWyoming legislature createdthe Act, the complaint typically had to show the plaintiff was the appointedrepresentativeoftheestate.133However,theJohnson majorityconsideredopeningaprobatecourtactionintheabsenceofanestate“absurd,”eventhoughothercourts and legal writers easily accept such a situation and recognize the Act’slanguage requires the representative’s appointment before filing a wrongfuldeathaction.134Thelegislaturecouldhaveeasilychangedthelanguagetousean
substantiallythesamefunctionunderthelawgoverningtheirstatus.”);31am. Jur. 2dExecutors and Administrators§7(2010)(“Thecommonlyaccepteddefinitionof‘personalrepresentative’includesan executor or administrator, and the Uniform Probate Code uses this term almost exclusively,insteadof‘executor’and‘administrator.’”(footnoteomitted));BLack’S LaW dIctIonary1416–17(9thed.2009)(“[Apersonalrepresentativeisa]personwhomanagesthelegalaffairsofanotherbecauseofincapacityordeath,suchastheexecutorofanestate.”); tIffany, supranote16,at237(“Wherethestatuterequirestheactiontobebroughtinthenameofthepersonalrepresentative,thecomplaintmustallegetheappointmentoftheplaintiffasexecutororadministrator.”).
130 See Pagel v. Franscell, 57 P.3d 1226, 1230 (Wyo. 2002) (quoting Wyo. Cmty. Coll.Comm’nv.CasperCmty.Coll.Dist.,31P.3d1242,1249(Wyo.2001));Person,supra note128,at567(“Statutesareconstruedasawholewiththeordinaryandobviousmeaningappliedtothewordsastheyarearrangedinparagraphs,sentences,clauses,andphrases.”);supra notes37–42andaccompanyingtext(citingotherWyomingstatutesthatusetheterm“personalrepresentative”).
131 See supra notes13–36andaccompanyingtext(discussingtheevolutionofwrongfuldeathinWyoming).
132 Wyo. Stat. ann. § 1-38-102 (2010); Melissa C. King, Are Kerps Alive in Essence? The Viability of Executive Incentive Bonus Plans After 11 U.S.C. § 503(C)(1),82St. John’S L. rev.1509,1526(2008)(“[I]tisaruleoflawwellestablishedthatthedefinitearticle‘the’particularizesthesubjectwhichitprecedes.”(quotingAm.Bus.Ass’nv.Slater,231F.3d1,4–5(D.C.Cir.2000))).
133 See tIffany, supranote16,at237(“[F]ailuretoamendthe[wrongfuldeath]complaintso as to show that the . . . plaintiff was administrator of the estate of the deceased was a fataldefect.”); Person,supra note128,at567(statingacourtmustinterpretastatute’swordsastheywereunderstoodatthetimethestatutewascreated).
134 In reEstateofJohnson,231P.3d873,880(Wyo.2010);seeCarrickv.Cent.Gen.Hosp.,414 N.E.2d 632, 636 n.2 (N.Y. 1980) (“It is well established that the existence of a qualifiedadministratorisessentialtothemaintenanceoftheactionandthatthestatutoryrighttorecoverforwrongfuldeathdoesnotevenariseuntilanadministratorhasbeennamedthroughtheissuanceof lettersofadministration.”);Murgv.BarnsdallNursingHome,123P.3d21,25(Okla.2005)(holding it appropriate to reopen a probate estate and appoint a new individual as personalrepresentative for the purpose of bringing a wrongful death action when the previous personalrepresentativefortheestaterefusedtopursuetheaction);Richardsonv.Kennedy,475S.E.2d418,426 (W.Va.1996) (stating if thedecedent’s estate is closedprior tobringing awrongfuldeathaction,thecourtshouldreopenitandappointthepetitionerasrepresentativetopursuetheaction);
IndecidingLarry Johnson’s father shouldnothavepetitioned theprobatecourtforappointment,theWyomingSupremeCourtgavetoomuchconsiderationtotheplacementofthewrongfuldeathstatutesoutsidetheProbateCode.137Themajoritymisinterpretedthestatutes’placementintheCodeaslegislativeintenttoseparatethetwoactions,whenitresultedsimplyfromthelegislature’sdesiretoclarifyandupdatetheoverallWyomingCode.138Thelegislatureclearlyintendedtolimititsinvolvementatthattimetohousekeepingmatters,not“toeliminateoraffectinanywaycausesofactionforwrongfuldeath.”139
cooLey,supra note14,at95(“[A]nadministratormaybyappointedforthepurposeofbringing[awrongfuldeathaction]thoughtherebenoestate.”);FowlerVincentHarper,Comment,Jurisdiction to Appoint an Administrator to Sue for Wrongful Death,6Ind. L.J.506,510(1930)(“The[Indiana]statute recognizes the validity of administration when there is no estate except the claim forwrongfuldeath.”).
135 SeeBPAm.Prod.Co.v.Madsen,53P.3d1088,1091(Wyo.2002)(citingApplicationofHotelSt.GeorgeCorp.,207N.Y.S.2d529,531(1960))(“Inastatute,‘a’usuallymeans‘any.’”);King, supra note132,at1526(quotingAm. Bus. Ass’n,231F.3dat4–5(statingtheuseof ‘the’connotesalimitationwhile‘a’or‘an’ismoregeneral).
137 See Johnson, 231 P.3d at 880 (concluding the personal representative appointment in awrongfuldeathactionhas“nothingtodowiththeappointmentofanexecutororadministratorundertheprobatecode”);supra notes13–36andaccompanyingtext(explainingtheplacementoftheWrongfulDeathActintheWyomingCode).
139 1982Wyo.Sess.Laws93–94;see supra notes21–36andaccompanyingtext(discussingtheperiodoflegislativechangesinthe1970sand1980s).
140 See2edgar B. kInkead, the LaW of pLeadIng 834(1985)(“Therighttosue[forwrongfuldeath],beingpurelystatutoryandinderogationofthecommonlaw,mustbestrictlyconstrued[and]extendedonlytothepersonalrepresentative.”).
2011 caSe note 259
holding,thecourtexpresslyconnectedtheWrongfulDeathActtotheintestacystatutes as “a viable constructionof the statutes as they stoodat that time.”141SinceBircher, the legislature replaced theAct’s reference to theProbate Code,whichdistributedtheproceedsfromawrongfuldeathaction,withaprovisionallowingnearlyanyonetheopportunitytorecoverdamages.142Additionally,since1963itenactedprovisionsprotectingtheproceedsfromawrongfuldeathactionfromcreditorsofthedecedent’sestate.143TheJohnson courtinferredfromthesechangesthattheassociationtotheProbateCodenolongerexistedandspecificallyoverruledBircher.144
142 Wyo. Stat. ann§1-38-102(c)(2010)(“Thecourt...mayawardsuchdamages...asshallbedeemedfairandjust.”);see supra notes21–23andaccompanyingtext(discussingchangesmadetothedamagesprovisionofWyoming’swrongfuldeathstatutes).
143 See Wyo. Stat. ann.§1-38-102(“[N]odebtofthedeceasedmaybesatisfiedoutoftheproceedsofanyjudgmentobtainedinanyactionbroughtundertheprovisionsofthissection.”);1973Wyo.Sess.Laws149(modifyingthedistributionofproceedsfromawrongfuldeathactionjudgmentandaddingasectionprotectingsuchproceedsfromthedecedent’screditors).
144 Johnson, 231 P.3d at 879 (“[I]t is now clear that a wrongful death action is not to beprocessedundertheprobatecode.”); see 21C.J.S.Courts§202(2010)(“Acourtshouldbereluctanttooverruleitsinterpretationofstatutorylanguageafterthelegislaturehasreenactedoramendedthestatutewithoutmodifyingorexpressingdisagreementwiththeconstruedlanguage.”).
145 See Ashleyv.ReadConstr.Co.,195F.Supp.727,728–29(D.Wyo.1961)(exemptingthein-staterequirementoftheprobatecodefromapplyingtowrongfuldeathactionswithoutlimitingotherprovisions);SpeISer et aL., supra note16,§11:31(explaining themajorityof statesallowpersonalrepresentativesappointedoutsidethewrongfuldeathaction’sjurisdictiontomaintaintheaction,wheregenerallyarepresentative lacksauthorityoutsidethe jurisdictionofappointment);supra note24andaccompanyingtext(notingthe legislatureretainedthepersonalrepresentativerequirement); infra notes146–47andaccompanyingtext.
146 See Weteringv.Eisele,682P.2d1055,1061(Wyo.1984)(“Whenthelegislatureadoptsastatuteitispresumedtohavedonesowithfullknowledgeoftheexistingstateoflawwithreferenceto the subject matter of the statute.”); supra notes 127–36 and accompanying text (noting thelegislatureretainedthepersonalrepresentativerequirementwhilecognizantofexistingcaselaw).
147 See 1973 Wyo. Sess. Laws 149 (deleting the language identifying specific beneficiariesof a wrongful death action and adding a section protecting such proceeds from the decedent’screditors);Wetering,682P.2dat1061(concludingthelegislature,inamendingtheWrongfulDeath
260 WyomIng LaW revIeW Vol.11
Wyoming Case Law
In the years between Bircher and Johnson, the Wyoming Supreme Courtdecided cases the Johnson majority overlooked, and these cases reinforced theconnectionofpersonalrepresentativeintheWrongfulDeathActtotheProbateCode.148Because theActas applied inWyomingalways existedoutsideof theProbate Code, case law provides a more accurate source of legislative intentthan the majority’s reliance on the Act’s placement.149 Wyoming courts andpractitionershavelonginterpretedtheterm“personalrepresentative”tomeantheadministratororexecutorofthedecedent’sestate,andthelackofcongressionalmodificationsfollowingthesecasesdemonstratesthelegislature’sacquiescencetothis interpretation.150While the Act does not reference the Probate Code andvice versa, theWyoming Supreme Court has traditionally applied the ProbateCode’sdefinitionsandprovisionsindecidingwrongfuldeathissues.151Notably,practitionersinWyomingpreviouslyconsideredaprobatecourtappointmentofthepersonalrepresentativenotonlyappropriatebutrequired.152
148 See Corkillv.Knowles,955P.2d438,443(Wyo.1998);DeHerrerav.Herrera,565P.2d479, 482 (Wyo. 1977); Jordan v. Delta Drilling Co., 541 P.2d 39, 42 (Wyo. 1975), overruled by Wetering, 682 P.2d 1055, as recognized in Johnson, 231 P.3d at 879; Coliseum Motor Co. v.Hester,3P.2d105,108(Wyo.1931);21C.J.S.Courts§202(2010)(describinghowoverrulingadecisionalsooverrulesholdingsbasedonthatoverruleddecision);Connors,supra note125,at682(“TheSupremeCourtconsidersstaredecisis—theobligationtoadheretopastopinions—tobe‘indispensable’tothe‘ruleoflaw.’”);supra notes54–66andaccompanyingtext(discussingrelevantcasesdecidedbetween1963and2010).
149 See 1979Wyo.Sess.Laws257,311(movingtheWrongfulDeathActtotheProbateCode);1981Wyo.Sess.Laws237(repealingtheWrongfulDeathActfromtheProbateCode).Thereisanabsenceofwrongfuldeathcasesbetween1979and1981whentheActwaswithintheprobatecodeandthelegislatureisassumedtobeawareofthecaselawwhenmodifyingstatutes.See Wetering,682P.2dat1061(statingthelegislatureispresumedtoknowexistingcaselawwhenenactingarelatedstatute);supra notes43–66andaccompanyingtext(discussingthehistoryofcaselaw).
150 SeeCorkill,955P.2dat443(“Thestatuterequireseverywrongfuldeathactiontobebroughtbyandinthenameofthedecedent’spersonalrepresentative,i.e.,theexecutororadministratorofthe decedent’s estate.”); Bircher v. Foster, 378 P.2d 901, 902 (Wyo. 1963) (“[T]he only personwhocouldbringanactionforwrongfuldeathwasthepersonalrepresentativeofthedeceased,theexecutororadministratorofdecedent’sestate.Weseenoreasonwhytheseviewsshouldnowbealtered.”), overruled by Johnson,231P.3dat879;21C.J.S.Courts§202(2010)(“Whileacourthasthepowertooverruleprecedent,itshoulddosoonlyforthemostcompellingreasons.”).
151 Lawson, supra note2, at411 (stating theWyomingSupremeCourthasoftenused theProbateCodefordefinitionsandprovisionsinapplyingtheWrongfulDeathAct).
152 See, e.g., Corkill, 955 P.2d at 440 (“Knowles is the decedent’s father and the qualifiedpersonal representative of the decedent’s estate.”); Jordan, 541 P.2d at 41 (“[P]laintiff-appellantwas appointed, qualified and is the acting administratrix of the estate . . . and as his personalrepresentative,brought this action forhiswrongfuldeath.”);Coliseum Motor Co.,3P.2dat105(Wyo.1931)(“Thisactionwasbroughtby...[the]administratrixoftheestate.”).
2011 caSe note 261
In disregarding the Probate Code’s well-defined provision for determininga personal representative and merely suggesting it may provide guidance, themajorityturnedoncepredictableoutcomesintoopenquestions,thussubjectingpractitioners toacourt’sunpredictablediscretion.153Previously inWyoming,acourtnotsittinginprobatelackedauthoritytoappointapersonalrepresentativefor the purpose of bringing a wrongful death action.154 In Butler v. HalsteadthecourtexpresslyheldcertainprovisionsofWyoming’sProbateCodecontrolaspectsofawrongfuldeathaction.155JusticeHill’sdissentinJohnsonappropriatelyaddressedthelonghistoryofholdingsinWyoming,statingthecourthasalwaysinterpretedthewrongfuldeathstatutetorelyontheProbateCodeinappointingapersonalrepresentative.156Byoverrulingthecourt’spriordecisions,theJohnson majoritycreatedvagueness,uncertainty,andvaryinginterpretations,whichruncontrarytothecourt’sownrulesofstatutoryconstruction.157
Challenges and Contention
IsolatingthewrongfuldeathstatutesfromtheProbateCodepotentiallycreatesadditional judicial proceedings and conflicts between individuals supposedlyrepresentingthesame interests.158 Inappointingarepresentativewithoutusingobjectivecriteria,acourt’sdecisionwillbemoresusceptibletochallengesbyother
153 See Payne v.Tennesee, 501 U.S. 808, 827 (1991) (“Stare decisis is the preferred coursebecauseitpromotestheevenhanded,predictable,andconsistentdevelopmentoflegalprinciples,fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity ofthe judicialprocess.”);AlpineLumberCo. v.CapitalW.Nat’lBank,231P.3d869,873 (Wyo.2010)(statingthatcourtsshouldavoidoverturningestablishedcaselawinterpretingastatuteasitessentiallychangesthestatute,whichistheprovinceofthelegislature,notthejudiciary);Connors,supra note125,at688 (“Staredecisis fosters the relatedaimsofpredictability,notice,perceivedlegitimacy,andfairness,becauseitprovidesthatlikecaseswillbetreatedalike.”).
154 See, e.g., Corkill, 955P.2d at443 (Wyo.1998) (equating thewrongfuldeath’spersonalrepresentativetotheexecutororadministratorofthedecedent’sestate);Bircher,378P.2dat903(“[T]hereisnoauthorityinthisStateeitherbystatuteordecisionwherebyadistrictcourt,unlesssitting in probate, would be authorized to appoint a father as the personal representative of adeceasedsonforthepurposesofadeathaction.”).
155 Butler v. Halstead, 770 P.2d 698, 700 (Wyo. 1989) (“[T]he persons for whose benefita wrongful death action is brought are all of those persons identified in § 2-4-201 [of theProbateCode].”).
156 In reEstateofJohnson,231P.3d873,882(Wyo.2010)(Hill,J.,dissenting).
157 SeeCookv.State,841P.2d1345,1353(Wyo.1992)(statingcourtsshouldfollowprecedentasitpromotesreliability,predictability,consistency,andintegrityofthejudicialprocess);Bircher,378P.2dat902(decliningtodiscusstheplaintiff ’sargumentthattheWrongfulDeathAct’s“personalrepresentative” has a broader definition than the Probate Code’s, and stating previous opinionsalreadysettledtheissue);Person,supra note128,at566;supra notes37–41andaccompanyingtext(explainingtheProbateCode’sprovisionsprovidestructuretothewrongfuldeathstatutes).
158 See SpeISer et aL., supra note 16, § 15:6 (discussing the importance of a court processappointing personal representatives to minimize family disputes and complications as well asprovidecertaintyandpromotejudicialefficiency);infra notes159–65andaccompanyingtext.
262 WyomIng LaW revIeW Vol.11
possiblerepresentativesaswellasbydefendantsattemptingtodefeattheactionbasedonstanding.159Absentaspecificprocessforappointingarepresentativetobring a wrongful death action, this decision increases litigation by permittingmorechallengestoappointments,ultimatelytothedetrimentofthoseharmedby the wrongful death.160 In Johnson, for example, the father failed to presentreasonswhyheshouldhavepriorityoverthedecedent’swifeinawrongfuldeathclaim,yetthecourtremandedthecasesimplybecauseitwasbroughtasaprobateaction.161Thepurposeofawrongfuldeathactionis,firstandforemost,tobenefitthedecedent’sdependents,forwhichtheProbateCodeprovidesobjectivecriteriafor appointment and safeguards their interests.162 Justices Hill and Golden, intheirdissent,appropriatelyconcludedthecourtshouldhaveacceptedtheprobatecourtastheappropriatevenueandremandedthecase,orderingthelowercourttofollowtheProbateCode’sproceduresbyappointingthewifeasthepersonalrepresentative.163 In remanding the case, the Johnson majority warned againstappointing a personal representative on a first-come, first-served basis, yet it
159 See Tannerv.King,157A.2d643,644(N.H.1960)(holdingthelackofaproperplaintiffasrequiredbythestatuteprecludedthecourtfrommaintainingtheaction);Henkelv.Hood,156P.2d790,792(N.M.1945)(“Itisincidentalthata‘personalrepresentative’...isnamedtobringsuit.Itisnotbecausethiswouldfallwithinhisdutiesassuch,butbecausesomeonemustbenamedandourLegislaturehasfixeduponsuchapersonastheonetosue.”);DavidK.Deitrich,Florida’s Wrongful Death Law: Time for a Change,18u. fLa. L. rev.637,645 (1966) (“[S]ome sortofprioritymustbeestablishedtodeterminewhichbeneficiarycansue.”).
160 SeeConnors,supra note125,at688(“[S]taredecisis...reducestheamountofresearchandanalysisrequiredincasesanalogoustocasestheCourthasruledonbefore.”);supra notes153–57and accompanying text. In an article discussing the deficiencies of Florida’s statutes addressingwrongfuldeath,theauthorsuggestswrongfuldeathactionsshouldbebroughtasasingleactionbythepersonalrepresentative.Deitrich,supra note159,at 645.TheauthorexplainsamodelactissuedbyHarvardcontainedprovisionsincludingaprioritysystemamongthebeneficiariesandallowingsecondarybeneficiariestobringanactionaslongastheprimarybeneficiaryisgivennotice.Id.
161 Johnson,231P.3dat881.
162 See id.at883(Hill,J.,dissenting)(citing22Aam. Jur. 2dDeath§81(2003));Wyo. Stat. ann.§§2-4-201(specifyingaprioritylistofrelativesofthedeceasedentitledtoadminister),-203(definingexceptionstothoseentitledtoadministerbyreasonofincompetence),-205(describinghowtopetitionthecourtforappointmentasadministrator),-206(allowinginterestedpartiestocontestandopposeapetitionforappointment),2-7-205(2010)(requiringnoticeofadministrationofestatestothesurvivingspouseandallheirsatlawofthedecedent).
163 Johnson,231P.3dat883;seeJordanv.DeltaDrillingCo.,541P.2d39,42(Wyo.1975)(“[T]headministratororexecutor[oftheestateasappointedundertheprobatecode]mustbringtheaction.”), overruled byWeteringv.Eisele,682P.2d1055(Wyo.1984),as recognized in Johnson,231P.3dat879;Bircherv.Foster,378P.2d901,902–03(Wyo.1963)(“[T]hereisnoauthorityinthisStateeitherbystatuteordecisionwherebyadistrictcourt,unlesssittinginprobate,wouldbeauthorizedtoappointafatherasthepersonalrepresentativeofadeceasedsonforthepurposesofadeathaction.”), overruled by Johnson,231P.3dat879; supra notes43–66andaccompanyingtext(discussingrelevantWyomingcaselaw).
Other States’ Wrongful Death Statutes and Case Law
Themajority’sdecisionintheJohnsoncaseisinappositetootherstates’caselaw directly addressing this issue and contradicts the consistent interpretationof similarly-worded statutes created to serve a similar purpose.165 Most of thecountry’s wrongful death statutes share similar language with Wyoming’s,requiringapersonal representative tobring theaction.166Decisions fromthesejurisdictions are instructive, as courts have consistently interpreted the term“personalrepresentative”torefertotherepresentativeofthedecedent’sestate.167While some states explicitly reference their probate code or estate statutes, intheabsenceofadefinitionorappointmentcriteria,courtsandpractitionershavetraditionally applied the state’sprobate code tofill in theblanks.168Wyoming,
164 Johnson,231P.3dat881(majorityopinion); see FrederickDavis,Wrongful Death,1973WaSh. u. L. q. 327, 338 (1973). Davis calls the original approach of requiring the personalrepresentativeofthedeceasedtobringawrongfuldeathaction“simpleanddirect”andquestionthedecisionofsomejurisdictionstoallowalternativeplaintiffs:
It is not altogether clearwhat policy considerationsdictated a departure from thetraditionalapproach.. . .Whateverthereasonforthechanges,however,theyhavetaken place in a number of jurisdictions, and in every case the [determining whohasstandingtobringawrongfuldeathaction]which[was] sosimplyanddirectlydisposedofbytheoriginal[approach,has]becomemorecomplicated.
Davis,supra,at338.
165 See, e.g., Bennettv.Nicholas,250S.W.3d673,675(Ky.Ct.App.2007)(“[A]wrongful-death action can only be brought by the estate’s lawful representative, either the executor oradministrator.”); Luckey v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 219 N.W. 802, 804 (Neb. 1928) (“Theadministratorof thedeceased employee’s estate . . . is the ‘personal representative.’”);Henkel v.Hood,156P.2d790,794(N.M.1945)(Bickley,J.,concurringspecially)(“WhentheLegislatureemployedthephrase ‘personal representative’ theymeantexecutororadministratorof theestateofthedeceased.”);seesupra notes67–84andaccompanyingtext(discussingotherstates’wrongfuldeathcases).
166 See, e.g., d.c. code § 16-2702 (2010) (specifying a wrongful death action “shall bebroughtbyandinthenameofthepersonalrepresentativeofthedeceasedperson”);ky. rev. Stat. ann. § 411.130 (West 2010) (“[A wrongful death] action shall be prosecuted by the personalrepresentativeofthedeceased.”);neB. rev. Stat.§30-810(2010)(“Everysuchaction...shallbebroughtbyandinthenameoftheperson’spersonalrepresentative.”); W. va. code ann.§55-7-6(2010)(usingthephrase“suchpersonalrepresentative”); see supra notes67–75andaccompanyingtext(reviewingotherstates’statuteswithlanguagesimilartoWyoming’s).
167 See JamesE.Goldie,Comment,The Arkansas Wrongful Death Statute,35ark. L. rev.294,294(1981)(“Generally,thesuitisbroughtinthenameofthepersonalrepresentativeofthedecedent’sestateonbehalfofthosebeneficiariesentitledtodamages.”).
168 See, e.g., In re Estate of Hutman, 705 N.E.2d 1060, 1065 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)(“[T]hedeterminationofwhobecomesaspecialadministratordoesnotrestsolelyuponwhowinstheproverbialracetothecourthouse.Rather,thepersonchosenmustalsobequalifiedunderthe
170 See In reEstateofJohnson,231P.3d873,879–80(Wyo.2010)(overrulingBircher basedon the lack of legislative direction expressly written into theWrongful Death Act); supra notes43–86andaccompanyingtext(surveyingotherjurisdictions’treatmentofwrongfuldeathactionsandstatutes).
171 See IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21, 32 (2005) (“Considerations of stare decisis areparticularlyforcefulintheareaofstatutoryconstruction,especiallywhenaunanimousinterpretationof a statutehas been accepted as settled law for several decades.”);Dunnegan v.LaramieCnty.Comm’rs,852P.2d1138,1140(Wyo.1993)(quotingCookv.State,841P.2d1345,1353(Wyo.1992)(statingcourtsshoulddepartfromprecedenttopreventtheperpetuationoferrorand“tovindicateplain,obviousprinciplesoflaw”));supra notes43–85andaccompanyingtext(examiningotherstates’wrongfuldeathstatutesandcases).
172 See supra notes 13–86 and accompanying text (detailing Wyoming’s wrongful deathstatutes’legislativehistoryandhistoryofrelatedcases).
173 See supra notes127–47andaccompanyingtext(contendingthecourtshouldnotusethelocationofthestatuteswithintheWyomingCodetoinferlegislativeintent).
174 See supra notes148–57andaccompanyingtext(examiningpreviousWyomingdecisions).
however,isthefirststatetoleavetheappointmentofthepersonalrepresentativeinawrongfuldeathactionuptothebroaddiscretionofadistrictcourt,withoutproviding statutory guidance or benefiting from established case law.169 ThedecisioninJohnsoncreatesalegalanomalyinWyoming,asWyomingisnowthefirststatetodisassociatethe“personalrepresentative”inawrongfuldeathactionfromtheadministratororexecutorofthedecedent’sestate,basedsolelyonanewinterpretationofanoldstatute.170Instead,theJohnson courtshouldhavefolloweditsprecedentandthepervasivelegalinterpretationoftheseotherstatesinkeepingthe appointment of a personal representative firmly tethered to the ProbateCode’sprovisions.171
concLuSIon
TheWyomingSupremeCourt’sholdinginIn re Estate of Johnson contradictslegislative intent and reverses years of case history by divorcing the ProbateCode’s criteria for appointing personal representatives from wrongful deathactions.172Wyoming’s legislative history and case law demonstrate the ProbateCodeismeanttocomplementtheWrongfulDeathAct,regardlessoftheAct’slocation in the Wyoming code.173 Furthermore, previous decisions provided aclearroadmapuponwhichpractitionerscannolongerrely.174TheJohnson court’s
2011 caSe note 265
175 See supra notes158–64andaccompanyingtext(showinghowtheprobatecode’sprovisionsandearlierdecisionsincorporatingthemprovidedstructureandpredictableoutcomes).
176 See supra notes158–64andaccompanyingtext.
177 See supra notes161–64andaccompanyingtext(usingtheproceduralhistoryoftheJohnson caseasanexampleoftheprobleminnotapplyingtheprobatecodewhenappointingthepersonalrepresentativeinawrongfuldeathaction).
The Probate Code provides the best process for appointing personalrepresentatives.176Withoutoverridingestablishedexceptions,itshouldcontinuetocontrolthedefinitionandappointmentprocessoftherepresentativetobringa wrongful death action.177 The absence of relationship priority and a noticerequirementwillonlyleadtoincreasedlitigationandlegalwrangling.178UntilthelegislatureamendstheWrongfulDeathAct,thisdecisionprovideslittleincentiveforapetitionertoinformotherpotentialrepresentativesofhisorheractionsandevenlesstopreventpetitionersfromracingtothecourthouse.179
