I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - CA- 0 2 1 3 4 - S CT J AMESA. BU

RL EY , P AR EN T / GUA RD I

AN AN D NE XT FR I EN D OF FRAN CES CA HI

L L , J OS HUA HI LL AND J

AKURA HI

LL , M I NORS
v. EDDI E E. DOU GLASAND YAZOO VAL LEY EL EC T RIC P OW

ER AS S OC I AT ION
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 11/ 07/ 2007 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . JA N N IE M . L E W IS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: YAZOO COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L ANT : E DUAR DO AL BE RT O F L E CH AS AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E S : BR ADL E Y F . HAT HAW AY P HI L I P A. GUNN NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - W RO NG FUL D EATH D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 11/ 05/ 2009 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. W ALLER, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. J ames A . B ur l ey br ought the i ns t ant w rongful -dea th act i on as a r es ul t of the dea ths
o f his g ran d ch il d ren , Jo sh u a a n d Ja k u ra H il l, m ino rs. T h e Y az o o C o u n ty C ir cu itC o u rt g ra n ted su m m a ry jud g m e n t i n fav o r o f th e d e fe n d a n ts, ru lin g tha t B u rle y lac k e d sta n d in g to br i ng the s ui t . B ur l ey appea l s t hatdeci s i on. Fi ndi ng thatB ur l ey qual i f i ed as an “i nt er es t ed p a r ty ” u n d e rth e wr o n g f u l
- d e a th s t a tu t e , s o th a th e h a d s t a n d i n g t o c o mm e n c e th e s u i t , we re v e rs e th e c ir c u it c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t a n d re m a n d
.

### Burl ey’ s originalc ompl aint was ame nded on Septe mbe r 20, 2005, t o spe ci fy that 1 

### thecom pens at ory dama ges “repre s e nt [ e d] los s of soc ie ty and com

pani onship, the pr es ent

net cash v alue o f the deced ents’ life expectan cies, hed on ic damag es, physical an d mental pain and s uff ering, me dic alexpe nse s, fune ra l e xpens es , and dam ageto pe rs onalprope rty.” Her ea ft er , YVEPA and Dougla s wi llberef er re d t o col le ctive ly a s YVEPA, exc ept 2 

### wher e i t i s ne ce ss ar

y to ref er to oneor the other

in an individua l c apa ci ty. 2 F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. O n the m orni ng of J ul y 17, 2003, Fr ance s ca H i l l and her tw o m i nor chi l dr en, J os hua and J akur a, w er e tr avel i ng C art erR oad nea rY azoo C i ty, M i s s i s s i ppi , w hen thei rcarw as s truck by a truck dr i ven by E ddi e D ougl as . A tt he t i m e of t he acc i dent , D ougl as w as dr i vi ng a tru c k o w n e d b y h is e m p lo y e r, Y a z o o V a lley E lec tric P o w e r A ss o c iatio n (“ Y V E P A ” ). H ill
a n d h e r t w o c h ild re n w e re k ille d in th e a c c id e n t. ¶3. O n J une 7, 20 04 , Jam es B url ey co m m enced the inst ant w rongful
- death act i on by f i l i ng s ui tagai ns tD ougl as a nd Y V E PA i n the C i r cui tCourtof Y azoo Count y, M i s s i s s i ppi
. B ur l ey s ty le d h is c o m p la in t, “ Jam es A
. B ur l ey, P ar ent / G uar di an and N

ext B es tFr i end of

Fr ances ca Hil l, Jo sh u a Hil l a n d

Ja ku ra Hil l, Mino rs v. E dd ie E
. D o u g las an d Y a zo o V a lley E lec tric P ow erA s s oci at i on. ” B ur l ey’ s compl ai ntal l eged that“as a d i rectand pr oxi m at e r es ul tof D efe n d an ts[ ’] . . . w il lf u l an d w an ton m isco n d u ct, an d g ross n eg li g en ce . . . the P lai n ti ff, J ames A . B ur l ey, l os tthe l i f e of hi s daught erand [ tw o] gr andchi l dr en. ” The com pl ai nts t at ed th a t B u rle y “ is th e so le a n d p ro p e r p e rso n to b rin g th is c a u se o f a c tio n fo r a n d o n th e ir behal f
. ” B ur l ey s ough tcom pen sat ory dam ages, as w el l as $20 , 00 0, 00 0 in pun i t i ve d am ages. 1 ¶ 4 . O n A u g u st 6 , 2 0 0 4 , Y V E P A an sw e re d B u rle y ’s c o m p lain t. Y V E P A d e n ied liab ili ty 2
a n d a s s e rt e d , in tera lia , Bu r l e y ’ s l a c k o f s t a n d i n g a s a n a f

f i r ma t i v e d e f

e n s e t o th e a c t i o n . On J une 2, 2005, near l y one yea raf t ercomm ence m ento f t he i ns t antact i on, B ur l ey f i l ed

### The wrongful -de ath cl ai m brought on be hal f of France sc a Hi ll , Burle y’s daught er , 3 

### was not a ff

ec te d by thi s r

uling. In dis mi ss ing Burle y’s wrongf ul- death c laim s a s t o Jos hua and J akura Hi ll , the tri alcourt expres sly found “ that t her e i s no j ust

re as on to de lay” and directedentryof th e final ju dg ment “p ursu ant to Ru le 54 (b) o f th e M ississipp i Ru les of C ivil Proc edur e. ” Thedis mi ss al, therefore, was prope rly ce rtif ie d under Rule54(b) as an app ealable fin al jud gment. 3 pet i t i ons f

orappoi nt m entof

admi ni s tr at orand f

ori s s uance of

l ett er s of admi ni s tr at i on i n the C h an ce ry C o u rto f H u m p h rey s C o u n ty. T h ese p eti ti o n s re p rese n ted th at Jo sh u a a n d Jak u ra
w er e s ur vi ved by “tw o gr andpar ent s , na m el y J ames Burl ey and Earnes t i ne H i l l
. ” O n J une 2 3 , 2 0 0 5 , le tte rs o f a d m in is tr a tio n w e re g ra n te d to B u rl e y . ¶5 . T h ere after, o n A u g u st 3 , 20 0 5 , th e H u m p h rey s C o u n ty C h an ce ry C o u rten tered o rde rs det erm i ni ng the hei r s - at - l aw of J os hua and J akur a H i l l
. T hos e hei r s hi p or der s concl uded that B ur l ey, among ot her s , w as an hei r - at - l aw of both J os hua and J akur a. ¶6 . O n A u g u st 30 , 2 0 0 7 , Y V E P A fil ed a m o ti o n to d ism iss or, alt ern ati v ely, for su m m ary j udgm ent , as t o the w r ongf ul
- death cl ai m s forJos hua and Ja kur a on t he gr ound thatB ur l ey lac k e d sta n d in g to c o m m e n c e a w ro n g fu l-d e a th a c tio n o n th e ir b e h a lf. A h e a rin g w a s h e ld on the mot i on, and on N ovember7, 2007, the ci r cui tcourt , fi nd i ng t hatB ur l ey l acke d
s t andi ng, di s m i s s ed the cl ai m s br oughton behal f of and as t o the dea ths of J os hua and J a k u r a , a n d e n t e r e d f

i n a l j u d g me n ti n f

a v o ro f YVE P A. 3 ¶ 7 . A g g rie v e d b y th e trial c o u rt’s o rd e r, B u rle y a p p e a ls, a ss ig n in g tw o issue s for a p p e llate
re v iew : (1 ) w h e th e r B u rle y w a s th e p ro p e r p a rty o r p e rso n to file th e su b jec t w ro n g fu l-d e a th
ac ti o n ; and (2) w h ethe r th e tri al co u rte rred in g ran ti n g the a p p ell ee s’ m o ti o n to d ism iss or, i n the al t ernat i ve, f

ors um m ary j udgm ent , as t o the w r ongf ul
- death cl ai m s of

J os hua H i l l andB u rl ey m isun d erstan d s the d ist in c ti o n b etw ee n “statuto ry h eirs” an d “statuto ry 4 w ro n g fu l-d e a th b e n e fic iar ies .” In h is b rie f, B u rle y a ss e rts th a t h e w a s a p ro p e r p lain tiff to comm ence and mai nt ai n thi s w r ongf ul
- death act i on beca us e the hei r s hi p or der s “conc l ude th a t [h e ], a m o n g o th e rs , is a w rong f ul death b enefi ci ary , as w el l as an hei r - at -l aw thr ough i nt es t at e s ucce s s i on. ” (Em phas i s added. ) H ow ever , B ur l ey’ s adj udi cat i on as an hei r - at - l aw di d not s i m ult aneo usl y ad j ud i cat e him t o b e a “st atutory w rongful -death b enef i ci ary” ( “l i s t ed re la tiv e ” ). See fo o tn o te 8 , i nfr a . 

### 4 Ja k u ra H ill . W e fin d th e first iss u e , w h e th e r B u rle y h a d sta n d in g to b rin g th e w ro n g fu l-d e a th act i on, di s pos i t i ve. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶8. T hi s C our t r evi ew s a tr i al court ’ s gr ant or deni al of a m ot i on f or s um m ary j udgm ent
o r a m o tio n to d is m is s u n d e r a d e n o v o s ta n d a rd
. Mo n sa n to v. H a ll , 912 So. 2d 134, 136 (M is s . 2 0 0 5 ). DI S CU S S I ON W he t he r Burl e y ha d s t andi ng t o f i l e t he i ns t ant wrong f

ul - de at h ac t i on. ¶ 9 . B u rle y a rg u e s th a t he w a s a p ro p e r p lain tiff t o co m m e n c e an d m a in tain th is w ro n g fu ld e a th a c tio n b e c a u se h e “ w a s ju d icia lly d e ter m in e d to b e a n h e ir at law an d w ro n g fu l d e a th benef i ci ary t o the dec edent s , J akur a H i l l and Jos hua H i l l
. ” B ur l ey addi t i onal l y ar gues t hat 4 he poss es s ed st andi ng vi a the l ett er s of admi ni s tr at i on. Y V E PA as s ert s thatB ur l ey l acke d
s t andi ng t o br i ng s ui t , as he w as nei therthe per s onal r epr es ent at i ve of the es t at es of

J os hua
a n d Ja k u ra a t th e tim e th e c o m p lain t w a s file d , n o r w a s h e a sta tu to ry w ro n g fu l-d e a th b e n e fi c ia ry p u rs u a n t to M is s is s ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 1 1 -7 -1 3 . ¶10 . T his C ou rt ’s analysi s of w ho has st an d ing to b ri n g a w ron gful -death acti on m ust
nece s s ar i l y begi n and end w i th M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s w r ongf ul
- death st atut e ( “the St atut e”) , w hi ch

### 5

p rov ides a c au se o f ac ti o n to rec o v er fo r a p erso n ’s w ron g ful d ea th ca u sed b y the d efe n d an t’ s “r eal , w r ongf

ul , orne gl i genta ctorom i s s i on. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 7- 13 ( R ev. 2004)
. T he St atut e cr eat es a new and i ndepende ntcaus e of act i on i n f

avorof thos e named i n the s t atut e. P ar t yka v. Y az oo D ev. Cor

p. , 376 So. 2d 646, 650 ( M i s s . 1979) ( ci t i ng H as s on G r ocer

y Co. v. Cook , 1 9 6 M iss . 4 5 2 , 4 5 9 , 1 7 S o . 2 d 7 9 1 (1 9 4 4 )). T h e S tatu te p ro v id e s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt, as f oll ow s: [ T ] he ac t i on f

ors uch damages m ay be br oughti n the name of the per s onal r epr es ent at i ve of

the dec eas ed per s on orunborn qui ck chi l d f orthe bene f

i tof al l per s ons ent i t l ed underthe l aw t o r ecove r , orby w i dow f orthe dea th of

her hus band, orby the hus band f orthe dea th of

the w i f e, orby the par entf

orthe d e a th o f a c h i l d o ru n b o r n q u i c k c h i l d , o ri n th e n a me o f a c h i l d , o ri n th e n a me of a chi l d f orthe dea th of

a par ent , or by a br otherf orthe dea th of

a s i s t er , or by a s i s t erf

orthe dea th of

a brother , or by a si s t erfort he dea th of a s i s t er , or a b ro th e r fo r th e d e a th o f a b ro th e r, o r a ll p a rties in ter e ste d m a y jo in in th e su it, and ther e s hal l be butone (1) s ui tf orthe s ame death w hi ch s hal l ens ue f orthe benef i tof al l part i es conce r ned, butthe det erm i nat i on of s uch s ui ts hal l notbar a n o th e r a c tio n u n le s s it b e d e c id e d o n its m e ri ts . . . . [ I ] n a n a c t i o n b r o u g h tp u r s u a n tt o th e p r o v i s i o n s o f th i s s e c t i o n b y th e wi d o w, h u sb an d , ch il d , fathe r, m o ther, si ste r o r b roth er o f th e d ec ea sed o r un b o rn qui ck chi l d, orby al l i nt er es t ed part i es , s uch party orpart i es m ay r ecove ras damages pr operty damages and f uner al , m edi cal or ot her r el at ed expe ns es i ncurr ed by orf

orthe dec eas ed as a re s ul tof s uch w r ongf

ul ornegl i gentactor o m iss io n o r b re a c h o f w a rra n ty , w h e th e r a n e sta te h a s b e e n o p e n e d o r n o t. A n y a m o u n t, bu t o n ly su c h a n a m o u n t, as m a y b e r e c o v e re d fo r p ro p e rty damage, f

uner al , m edi cal orotherr el at ed expe ns es s hal l be subj ectonl y t o the p aym ent of

t he d ebts or l i abil i t i es of the d eceased for property d am ages, f uner al , m edi cal orotherr el at ed expens es . A l l otherdamages r ecove r ed under th e p ro v isio n s o f th is se c tio n sh a ll n o t be su b jec t t o the p a y m e n t of

th e d e b ts orl i abi l i t i es of

the dec eas ed, exce ptas her ei naf t erpr ovi ded, and s uch damages shal l be d i stri bu t ed as fol l ow s: [D ]am a g e s fo r th e in

ju ry a n d d e a th o f a m a rrie d m a n sh a ll b e e q u a lly d istrib u ted to h is w ife a n d c h ild re n , a n d if h e h a s n o c h ild re n a ll sh a ll g o to h is w ife ; d a m a g e s fo r th e in ju ry a n d d e a th o f a m a rrie d w o m a n sh a ll b e e q u a lly di s tr i but ed t o t he hus band and c hi l dr en, a nd i f s he has no chi l dr en al l s hal l go to th e h u sb a n d ; a n d if th e d e c e a se d h a s n o h u sb a n d o r w ife , the d a m a g e s s h a llT he “w r ongf ul death benef

i ci ar i es ” enumer at ed i n the s t atut e 

### ar e the de ce dent ’s 5 

### immediate familymembers, i. e. , “the w i dow , hus band, chi l d, f ather , m other , s i s t er[ and] b ro th e r o f th e d e c e a se d .” M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -7 -1 3 . T h e se fa m ily m e m b e rs a re k n o w n to the benc h and barby the t erm of art , “s t atut ory w r ongf

ul
- death benef

i ci ar i es . ” H ow ever , t he w r o n g f u l- d e a th a c tio n c a n b e b ro u g h t b y p e rs o n s o th e r t h a n a fa m ily m e m b e r, 

### nam e ly the dec ede nt’ s pe rs onalrepre se ntative or an “ int er es te d party, ” who also may“bene fi t”from re cove ring dam age s f

rom thewrongf

ul- death s uit. T hu s, w e wi llnot us e the t er m “ben eficiaries” to d escri b e th ese family memb ers, since any p otential wro ng ful-d eath c l a i m ant t e c hn i c a l ly c ou l d b e c on s i de r e d a “be ne f i c i ary. ” In s t e a d, fo r

th e s akeof

c l ari ty, we wil l ref er to t hes e f am ily me mbe rs as “l is te d re latives,” and we shal l ref er to a llthree catego ries of claimants bythe umbrella term, “p otential wro ng ful-d eath claimants.” 6 be equa l l y di s tr i but ed t o t he chi l dr en; i f the dec eas ed has no hus band, norw i f e, n o r ch il d ren , the d am ag es sh all b e d istri b u ted e q u all y to the fath e r, m o ther, br other s and s i s t er s , ors uch of them as the dec eas ed may have l i vi ng athi s or herdeath. I f

the dec eas ed have nei therhus band, norw i f e, norchi l dr en, nor f ather , norm other , nors i s t er , norbr other , then the d am ages s hal l go t o the l egal r epr es ent at i ve, s ubj ectt o de bt s a nd ge ner al di s tr i but i on, a nd the f actthat the dec eas ed w as i ns t ant l y ki l l ed s hal l notaf f ectthe r i ghtof

the l egal re p re s e n ta tiv e to re c o v e r. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -7-1 3 (R ev . 2 0 0 4 ). ¶11. T he St atut e pr ovi des thr ee cat egor i es of pot ent i al w r ongf

ul
- death cl ai m ant s w ho m ay comm ence a w r ongf

ul
- death act i on. T he act i on m ay be br ought“( 1) by the pers onal
r epr es entat i ve on behal f of the es t at e and a l l otherper s ons ent i t l ed t o re cover ; (2) by one of the w r ongf

uldeath benef

i ci ar i es o n b e h a lf o f a ll p e rso n s e n tit led to re c o v e r; o r (3 ) b y ‘a ll

5 i nt er es t ed par t i es . . . . ’ ” L ong v. McK inney , 8 9 7 S o . 2 d 1 6 0 , 1 6 8 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ) (e m p h a sis
a d d e d ). E a c h c a teg o ry o f p o ten tial w ro n g fu l-d e a th c la im a n ts h a s a n e q u a l rig h t to in iti a te th e s u it. J. J. N

ew m an L um berCo. v. Sci pp , 128 M i s s . 322, 91 So. 11 ( 1922)
. T her ef or e, i ti s us ef ul t o def i ne thes e ca t egor i es of

pot ent i al w r ongf

ul
- death cl ai m ant s , t o the ext ent p o s s ib le , a n d to d e te rm in e if B u rl e y q u a lif

ie s a s o n e o f t h e m . 1. W hetherB ur l ey has s tandi ng as a pers onalr epr es entat i ve .

### 7

¶12. “Per s onal r epr es ent at i ve” i s de f i ned as “ [ a] per s on w ho m anage s the l egal a f f ai r s of
a n o th e r b e c a u se o f in c a p a c ity o r d e a th ,” a n d w h e n it is u se d b y a tes tato r, th e ter m re fe rs to
an ex ec u tor o r ad m inistrator o f th e e stat e. B lack ’s L aw D ict ion ary 10 4 5 (abr. 7 th ed
. 2 0 0 0 ). See a l so H il l v. Jam es , 2 5 2 M i s s . 5 0 1 , 5 0 7
- 0 8 , 1 7 5 S o . 2 d 1 7 6 , 17 9 ( 1 9 6 5 ) ( f i n d i n g t e r ms “per s onal r epr es ent at i ve” a nd “l egal r epresent at i ve” t o be s ynonym ous , def i ned s i m pl y as

“ e x e c u to rs a n d a d m in is tr a to rs o f p e rs o n s d e c e a s e d ” ). ¶13. T hes e t i t l es s i gni f y a r epr es ent at i ve capa ci ty, a s di s t i ngu i shed fr om an i nd i vidual
ca p ac ity , ev en tho u g h ea ch rep rese n tative ’s m etho d o f ap p o intm en t m ay d if fer,
a d m in is tr a to rs b y la w a n d e x e c u to rs b y w ill. S ealy v. G odda rd , 91 0 S o. 2d 50 2, 50 8 (M i ss. 2005)
. T he author i ty of the chanc ery c our tt o a ppoi nta n admi ni s tr at orexi s t s onl y i n cas es of i nt es t acy. H ow ever , an exe cut ori s named by t he t es t at ori n the w i l l , and he thus der i ves h is a u th o ri ty fr o m it a n d is c h a rg e d w ith it s e x e c u tio n . R i cks v. Johnson , 134 M i s s . 676, 99 S o . 1 4 2 , 1 4 6 (1 9 2 4 ). ¶1 4. Fi r s t , w e mus td e t e r mi ne i f Bur l e y’ s a pp oi ntmenta s a dmi ni s t r at orof J os hua and J akur a H i l l ’ s es t at es w as s uf f i ci entt o gi ve B ur l e y s t a ndi ng t o br i ng the w r ongf ul
- death act i on a s a p e rs o n a l r e p re s e n ta tiv e . ¶15. T hi s C our t ’ s r ece ntdeci s i on i n D el ta Heal th G r oup, Inc. v. E s tate of P ope , 995 So. 2 d 1 2 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ), i s i ns truct i ve i n re s ol vi ng t he curr entques t i on. I n P ope , E ll en P o p e’s g re a t- n e p h e w , J a m e s P a y n e , fi le d a w ro n g fu l- d e a th s u it a g a in s t D e lta H e a lth G ro u p . I d . At the ti m e P ayn e fi l ed h i s com plai nt, no est at e had been op ened forthe d ecede nt, and thu s, P a y n e h a d n o t b e e n a p p o in te d a s a d m in is tr a to r. Id . a t 1 2 5 .

### 8

¶16. A ppr oxi m at el y s even m onths af t er f i l i ng the w r ongf

ul
- death compl ai nt , Payne f i l ed
a p e titio n fo r l e tte rs o f a d m in is tr a tio n . Id . at 1 2 4 . D e lta s u b se q u e n tly filed a m o tio n to di s m i s s , or i n t he al t ernat i ve, m ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm entf orl ack of

s t andi ng, averr i ng thatPayne l acke d s t andi ng t o a s s ertc l ai m s on behal f of Pope’ s es t at e, and f

ur therthatPayne d id n o t q u a lify a s a “ listed re lativ e ” p u rsu a n t th e w ro n g fu l-d e a th sta tu te, a s h e w a s “ m e re ly the s on of

one of E l l en Pope’ s s ur vi vi ng ni ece s . ” Id . ¶1 7. B e f

or e the tr i a l c ou r trul e d on Del t a ’ s mot i on , Pa yn e f i l e d a m ot i on t o s ubs t i tut e. Payne as s ert ed he ha d s t andi ng t o br i ng the act i on b ecaus e he ha d been appoi nt ed
a d m in is tr a to r o f E lle n P o p e ’s e s ta te . Id . T he tr i al c our ta gr eed w i th Payne a nd al l ow ed the
s u b s titu tio n . Id . T her eaf t er , the t ri al courtdeni ed D el t a’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s , ori n t he al t ernat i ve, m ot i on f

ors um m ary j udgm ent , f i ndi ng that“J ames Payne had s t andi ng t o f i l e the
s ubj ectl aw s ui tand/ orpr oper l y s ubs t i tut ed hi m s el f a s the A dm i ni s tr at orof

the Est at e of

E l l en Pope, dece as ed. ” Id . ¶ 1 8 . D e lta fi le d a p e ti ti o n f o rin te rl o c u to ry a p p e a l, w h ic h th is C o u rt g ra n te d
. Id . at125. O n appea l , w e r ever s ed t he t ri al court , hol di ng thatPayne l acke d s t andi ng t o f i l e the
w r ongf ul
- death act i on. Speci f i cal l y, w e s t at ed: I ti s undi s put ed thatw hen thi s c om pl ai ntw as f i l ed, no es t at e had be en opened on be hal f

of E l l en Pope. T hi s C our thas hel d, “I ti s cer t ai nl y an u n d isp u tab le a n d in v a ria b le r u le o f la w th a t a r ig h t of ac tio n m u st b e c o m p lete w hen an a ct i on t her ef ori s comm ence d.
. . . ” Craw for d Com m er cial Const r uctors, Inc. v. Mar ine Indus. R es idential Ins ulati on, I

nc. , 437 So. 2d 15, 16 ( M i s s . 1983) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed)
. The c om pl ai ntw as f i l ed on A ugus t25, 2 0 0 4 , an d P a y n e d id n o t file h is P e tit io n fo r L e tters o f A d m in ist ra tio n u n til F e b ru a ry 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 . L ong v. McK inney r equi r es that , “[ i ] n the eve ntthe l i t i gant s w i s h t o pur s ue a c l ai m on behal f of the es t at e of

the dec eas ed, s uch estate m u st, o f co u rse, be o p en ed a n d a d m inist ere d thro u g h the c h an ce ry court . ” L ong v. McK

inney , 8 9 7 S o . 2 d 1 6 0 , 1 7 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ). T h e re c o rd isP ope al s o s t at es t hat“M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 91- 7- 233 ( R ev. 2004) 6 hol ds that‘ [ e] xecut or s , admi ni s tr at or s , and t emporar y adm i ni s tr at or s m ay comm ence and p ro se c u te a n y p e rso n a l ac tio n w h a tev e r, at la w o r in e q u ity , w h ich th e tes tato r o r in tes tate m ig h t h a v e c o m m e n c e d a n d p ro se c u ted .’ P a y n e h e ld n o n e o f th e o ffic e s m e n tio n e d th e re in w hen s ui tw as comm ence d. ” P ope , 995 So. 2d at126. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 91- 7- 233, cal l ed the “s ur vi val s t atut e, ” i s a s epar at e and di s t i nctl aw thatal l ow s onl y the per s onal r epr es ent at i ve t o br i ng a s ui tthatthe dec edentcoul d have br ought
. H ow ever , “[ w ] hen the s ame w r ongf

ul conductcaus es both per s onal i nj ury and deat h, atthe i ns t antof death, t he r ecove ry f

orthe per s onal i nj ury i s em br ace d by the ‘ one sui t ’ f orw r ongf

ul death and i s not act i onabl e by the es t at e under t he survi val s t atut e. ” I n r e Estate of

England , 846 So. 2d 1060, 1068 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2003) ( ci t i ng E dw ar d H ines Y el low P ine T

r ustees v. Stew art , 1 3 5 M iss . 3 3 1 , 3 4 7 , 1 0 0 S o . 1 2 , 1 4 (1 9 2 4 )). T h e re fo re , the su rv iv a l sta tu te w a s in a p p lica b le t o the s ui ti n P ope . T he w r ongf ul
- death s t atut e, as di s cus s ed her ei n, al l ow s the s ui tt o be broug ht by t he per s onal r epr es ent at i ve, cert ai n li st ed rel at i ves, and “i nter est ed p art i es. ” M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -7 -1 3 (R e v . 2 0 0 4 ). 

### 9 cl earthatatthe t i m e of

the f i l i ng of the compl ai nt , no es t at e had be en opene d on behal f

of Pope, thus P ayn e w as notthe admi ni s tr at orof a non- exi s t ent e s ta te . . . . T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thas rul ed that“s t andi ng i s t o be det erm i ned as of the com m ence m entof s ui t . ” L u jan v. D efe n ders o

f W il dli fe , 504 U . S. 555, 571, 112 S. C t . 2130, 2142, 119 L . E d. 2d 351, 371 ( U . S. 1992) ( emp hasi s added)
. T he f actthatPayne s ubs equent l y w as appoi nt ed as admi ni s tr at ordoes notc hange the undi s put abl e f actthatPayne l acke d s t andi ng to c o m m e n c e th e su it. P ope , 995 So. 2d at125- 26. 6 ¶1 9. H er e, as i n P ope , a tthe t i m e t he l aw s ui tw as i ni t i at ed, B ur l ey w as not t he admi ni s tr at orof

J os hua’ s a nd J akur a’ s es t at es . T he compl ai ntw as f i l ed on J une 7, 2004, at
w h ich tim e , n o e sta te h a d b e e n o p e n e d o n b e h a lf o f Jo sh u a o r Ja k u ra . B u rle y d id n o t file h is p e tit io n s fo r ap p o in tm e n t of ad m in istra to r an d fo r issu a n c e o f le tters o f a d m in istra tio n u n til J une 2, 2005. H e w as notf or m al l y appoi nt ed as admi ni s tr at orof t he es t at es of J os hua and Ja k u ra H ill u n til Ju n e 2 3 , 2 0 0 5 , m o re th a n o n e y e a r a fte r h e c o m m e n c e d th e w ro n g fu l-d e a th

### 10

s ui t . A s no es t at e had been opene d att he t i m e the compl ai ntw as f i l ed, B ur l ey coul d nothave b e e n th e a d m in is tr a to r o f n o n e x is te n t e s ta te s . P ope , 9 9 5 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 6 . ¶20 . T he f

actthatB url ey sub sequen t l y w as appo i nted adm i nis trat or of the est at es of Joshua and J akur a does notchange t he f actt hatB ur l ey l acke d s t andi ng, a s a per s onal r epr es ent at i ve, t o c omm e nc e the s ui tb e c a us e “ s t a nd i ng i s t o be d e t e r mi ne d a s o f the c omm e nc e ment of
s ui t . ” P ope , 995 So. 2d at126 ( quot i ng L u jan v. D efe n ders o

f W il dli fe , 504 U . S. 555, 571, 1 1 2 S . C t. 2 1 3 0 , 2 1 4 2 , 1 1 9 L . E d . 2 d 3 5 1 , 3 7 1 (1 9 9 2 ))
. ¶21. Si nce B ur l ey w as not the admi ni s tr at or of the es t at es of J os hua and J akur a H i l l att he t i m e he f i l ed the w r ongf

ul
- death a ct i on, he c oul d notqual i f y as a per s onal r epr es ent at i ve of the chi l dr en’ s es t at es bas ed on hi s af t er - acqui r ed s t atus as ad m i nis tr at or . T hus , he di d not h a v e s ta n d in g , a s a p e rs o n a l r e p re s e n ta tiv e , to fi le th is w ro n g fu l- d e a th a c tio n . 2. W hetherB ur l ey has s tandi ng as a l is t ed r elat i ve. ¶22. T he St atut e pr ovi des a l i s tof c e rt a i n i dent i f

i ed f ami l y m ember s of

the dec edent , w hom
w e sh a ll ca ll “liste d re lativ e s,” w h o m a y b rin g a w ro n g fu l-d e a th a c tio n . T h e S tatu te
enume rat es onl y the dec edent ’ s “w i dow orchi l dr en . . . orhus band orf atherorm other , or s is te r, o r b ro th e r . . . .” M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -7 -1 3 (R e v . 2 0 0 4 ). ¶23. B ur l ey, as J os hua and J akur a’ s gr andpar ent , i s not one of t he “l i s t ed re l at i ves ” w ho
m ay br i ng s ui t . T he L egi s l atur e di d notconf erupon gr andpar ent s s t andi ng t o br i ng
w r ongf ul
- death act i ons , and i ti s beyond thi s C our t ’ s pr er ogat i ve t o expand t he l i s tof
re la tiv e s w h o m a y d o s o . P ope , 9 95 S o. 2 d at1 26 . T heref ore, B url ey lacked st and i ng , as a

“ listed re lativ e ,” to b rin g th e in sta n t su it o n b e h a lf o f Jo sh u a a n d Ja k u ra H ill
. 3. W hetherB ur l ey has s tandi ng as an i nt er es t ed par t y.W e have s i nce not ed that“ a w r ongf ul death act i on m ay be br ought‘ by al l i nt er es t ed 7 part i es , ’ and ‘ al l part i es i nt er es t ed may j oi n the s ui t [ . ] ’ ” E s tate of K laus e x r el . K lau s v. Vi c ks b u r gHe a lth c a r e, LLC , 9 72 So. 2d 555, 559 n. 3 ( M i s s . 2007) ( quot i ng M i s s . C ode A n n . § 1 1 -7-1 3 ). 

### 11 ¶ 2 4 . F irst, w e m u st d e ter m in e w h e th e r an “in ter e ste d p a rty ” m a y c o m m e n c e a w ro n g fu ldeath act i on, or m er el y j oi n one. T he f i r s tpar agr aph of

t he St atut e pr ovi des t hatan ac t i on
m ay be br ought“i n t he nam e of the per s onal r epr es ent at i ve of the dec eas ed per s on[ , ] ” or“by [ one of the l i s t ed r el at i ves ] , ” or“al l part i es i nt er es t ed m a y jo in in th e su it . . . . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 7- 13 ( R ev. 2004) ( emphasi s added)
. H ow ever , t he St atut e goes on t o al l ow “an
a c tio n [to b e ] br ought
. . . by the w i dow , hus band, chi l d, fa ther , m other , s i s t erorbr otherof the d ec ea sed
. . . , o r by al li nt er est ed par t i es . ” I d. (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). R e c o g n izin g th is lan g u a g e , w e h a v e sta ted th a t: [ T ] her e ar e thr ee a l t ernat i ves f orbr i ngi ng a w r ongf

ul death sui t : ( 1) by the p e rso n a l re p re se n tativ e o n b e h a lf o f th e e sta te a n d a ll o th e r p e rso n s e n tit led to re c o v e r; (2 ) b y o n e o f th e [li ste d re lativ e s] o n b e h a lf o f all p e rso n s e n tit led to r ecove r ; or( 3) by “al l i nt er es t ed part i es . . . . ” Long , 897 S o. 2d at168 ( quot i ng M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 7- 13)
. T her ef or e, w e hol d, 7
cons i s t entw i th Long , that , notonl y m ay an i nt er es t ed party jo in a w r ongf ul
- death s ui t , but an i nt er es t ed party m ay in iti a te a w r ongf ul
- death act i on underthe t erm s of the St atut e. ¶25. N ext , w e m us t det erm i ne i f B ur l ey qual i f i es as an “i nt er es t ed party. ” N o M i s s i s s i ppi
cas e has expl i ci t l y def i ned w ho qual i f

i es as an “i nt er es t ed party” f orpurpos es of

t he
w r ongf ul
- death s t atut e. H ow ever , thi s C our tpr evi ous l y has det erm i ned thatone w ho q u a lifies a s a n h e ir o f th e d e c e a se d a lso q u a lifies as an in ter e ste d p a rty u n d e r th e w ro n g fu l-

### A per son who quali fi es as a “s tatut ory he ir” i s onewho is el igibleto inherit from t he 8 

### dec ede nt unde r our

int es tatedes ce nt and dis tribution s tatut es , and who the re for e m ay be adj udic at ed by the c hanc er y court a s an heir -at- law of the de ce dent . Mi ss . CodeAnn. §§ 91- 1-1 to -3 1 (Rev. 2004). Such a “s tatut ory he ir” doe s not nec es sari ly qua li fy a s a

“l is te d re lative”under

Mis si ss ippi ’s wron gfu l-death s tatut e. Mis s. Code Ann. § 11-7- 13 (Re v. 2004). The des ce nt and dis tribution st at ute s enum erat e as “s tatut ory he ir s, ” in des ce nding ord er of p riority , th e d ecedent’s spo use an d ch ildren , the d ecedent’s siblin gs an d p arents, and the de ce dent ’s grandpar ent s, uncl es , and aunt s. Mi ss . Code Ann. §§ 91-1- 1 to - 11. The “l is te d re latives ” in thewrongf ul- death s tatut e, h owever , do not inc ludethedec ede nt’ s gran dp arents, uncles, o r aunts. Miss. Co de Ann . § 1 1-7 -13 . T h e re fo re , a 

### per son l ikeBurl ey – who qual if

ie s a s a “s tatuto ry heir” under Sec ti on 91-1- 3 by vir tueof be ing J oshua

and Jakura ’s grandfathe r – doe s not qual if y as a “ li st ed r el ative ” unde r Se ction 11-7- 13, and would not

havest anding as suc h to bring a wro ng ful-death ac ti on. Howe ver , that per son may hav e standin g as an “ int er es te d party”to bring a wrongf ul- death a ction i f noneof the hig her-p riority , statuto ry h eirs surv ives th e deced ent. B ur l ey i s an exam pl e of s uch an i nt er es t ed party, a nd hi s a dj udi cat i on a s a n hei r - at - l aw of J os hua and J akur a H i l l conf i r m ed th a t s ta tu s . 

### Our decis i on i n Longnot ed that“[ t ] he pos s i bl e [ w r ongf ul
- death] cl ai m ant s ar e ( 1) 9 the h ei rs (

un der the w i l lor pu rsuant to the i ntes tate s uccessi on statut es) , (2) t he es t at e, and (3 ) t h e s ta tu to ry w ro n g fu l d e a th b e n e fi c ia ri e s .” Long , 8 9 7 S o . 2 d at 16 9 (em p h asis ad d ed ). Long ’ s cat egor i es ( 2) and ( 3) coi nci de w i th the s t atut ory cat egor i es “per s on a l r e pr e s e nt a t i ve” a n d “ lis te d r e la ti v e s ,” re s p e c tiv e ly . T h u s , Longrecogn i zed w i tho ut s t at i ng that the fi rs t 

### 12 death s t atut e. I n A lack v. P hel ps , 2 3 0 S o . 2 d 7 8 9 (M iss . 1 9 7 0 ), w e h e ld th a t ad o p ted tw in 8 b o y s co u ld stil l i n h eritfrom their na tural father, an d w e sp ec if icall y stat ed that the b o y s w ere “i nt er es t ed part i es ” underthe w r ongf ul
- death s t atut e and s houl d have be en i ncl uded i n t he
w ro n g fu l- d e a th a c tio n fo r t h e irn a tu ra l f a th e r’ s d e a th
. I

d . a t 7 9 3 . See a l

so , E s tate of

Jones
v. H o w e ll , 687 So. 2d 1171, 1175 ( M i s s . 1996) ( hol di ng, w i thoutl abel i ng hi m an i nt er es t ed party, thatadopt ed chi l d cou l d br i ng w r ongf ul
- death act i on f

orthe dea th of

hi s natur al fa th e r); McLem or e v. G am m on , 468 So. 2d 84, 86 ( M i s s . 1985) ( hol di ng, w i thoutl abel i ng them i nt er es t ed part i es, thatadopt i ve br other s and s i s t er s of adopt ed chi l d ki l l ed i n car acc i dentcoul d br i ng w r ongf ul
- death act i on t o the exc l us i on of the adopt ed chi l d’ s natur al sib lin g s); Long , 897 So. 2d at169. 9c a te g o ry w e m e n tio n e d , “ th e h e ir s ,” lo g ic a lly c o in c id e s w ith “ in te re s te d p a rt ie s .” 

### 13 ¶26. W e hol d thatB ur l ey qual i f i es as an i nt er es t ed par ty undert he w r ongf ul
- death s t atut e, and ther ef

or e, he had s t andi ng t o bri ng t hi s act i on. B ur l ey i s a bl ood r el at i ve of J os hua and Ja k u ra H ill , an d b e c a u se F ra n c e sc a H ill – J o s h u a a n d Ja k u ra ’s m o th e r a n d th e ir o n ly
av ail ab le “li sted relati v e” – w as k il led in the s am e a cc iden t th at trag icall y claim ed Jo sh u a’s and J akur a’ s l i ves , s he w as r emoved f r om the l i ne of

des centand di s tr i but i on. T hus , atthe
m o m e n t o f th e ir d e a th s, B u rle y h e ld th e s tatu s o f a n h e ir o f J o sh u a a n d Ja k u ra H ill , su c h th a t,
u n d e r o u r la w s o f in tes tate d e sc e n t an d d istrib u tio n , h e w o u ld h a v e b e e n e n tit led to in h e rit pr operty f

r om them. M i s s . Code A nn. §§ 91- 1- 1 t o - 31 ( R ev. 2004)
. H i s l at eradj udi cat i on by the ch ancery co urtas an heir -at -l aw of the chil dren m erel y con fi rm ed t his s t atus. T hu s,
w hen he comm ence d t he sui t , B ur l ey qual i f i ed as an “i nt er es t ed par ty” underthe t erm s of t he S ta tu te , a n d h e w a s a n a p p ro p ri a te w ro n g fu l- d e a th c la im a n t u n d e r t h e fa c ts o f t h is c a s e . ¶2 7 . Y V E P A , h o w ev er, argu es th at, un der the clearl ang u ag e o f L ong v. McK inney , J os hua
an d Jak u ra’s estates “ m u st, o f c o u rse, be o p en ed an d ad m inist ere d thro u g h the c h an ce ry c o u rt ” b e fo re B u rl e y m a y p u rs u e a w ro n g fu l- d e a th c la im o n b e h a lf o f t h e e s ta te . See Long , 89 7 S o. 2 d at174. W e do notthi nk the hol di ng i n Longi s a pp l i c a bl e t o thi s c a s e , f ort he fo llo w in g re a s o n s . ¶28. B ur l ey di d not s ue on behal f of the es t at es of J os hua and/ or J akur a H i l l
. H e br ought hi s a ct i on a s “ J

a m e s A . B u rle

y , P a re n t/G u a rd ia n a n d N ex t B e st Frie n d

o f Fra n c e sc a Hill

, Joshu a Hi l lan d Ja kura Hi l l , Mi no rs. ” A l though thi s w or di ng i s aw kw ar d, i ti s cl eart hat B ur l ey’ s compl ai ntdoes noti ndi cat e thatB ur l ey br oughtt he s ui tas per s onal r epr es ent at i ve

### 14

of t he de c e a s e d c hi l dr e n o ron be ha l f of the c hi l dr e n’ s e s t a t e s . I n f a c t , Bur l e y’ s c ompl a i nt st at ed t hat“the P lai nt i f f , Jam es A
. B ur l ey , l os tthe l i f e of hi s da ug ht e ra nd [ t w o] gr andchi l dr en. ” ( E m phas i s added. ) I ti ndi cat es thathe, i ndi vi dual l y, had s uf f er ed i nj ur y. T hus , the or i gi nal com plai ntm akes no cl ai m s on behal f of the es t at es of

ei therJ os hua or J a k u ra H ill. ¶29. B ur l ey’ s amended compl ai nt , how ever , i s di f f er ent . T he am ended c om pl ai ntas ks f or co m p en sato ry a n d p u n it ive d am ag es, as w ell as d am ag es fo r “ m edi cal expenses , f

uner al
ex p e n se s, a n d

da m a g e s to p e rs o n a l p ro p e rty .” ( E m p h a s is a d d e d .) It is n o t in c o n c e iv a b le th a t th is la n g u a g e in B u rl e y ’s a m e n d e d c o m p la in t, s e e k in g “ p re -d e a th a n d fu n e ra l d a m a g e s ,” ind icates tha t B u rl ey w as b ri n g ing an ac ti o n o n b eh alf of the estates o f Jos h u a a n d Jak u ra H ill. ¶30. Y V E PA pi cks up on thi s l anguage a nd a r gues thatBurl ey’ s c l ai m s conce rni ng J os hua and J akur a H i l l n ecessar i l y w er e br oughton behal f of thei res t at es . Y V E PA ci t es In re Estate of England , and ar gues that“i f none of the l i s t ed r el at i ves survi ves t he dece dent , t he damages be come an as s etof the dece dent ’ s es t at e. ” England , 8 46 S o. 2d 10 60 , 10 66 (M i ss. C t . A pp. 2003) ( ci t i ng Sm ith v. G a rr e tt , 287 So. 2d 258, 2 61 (M i ss. 1973) )
. T her ef or e, Y V E PA ar gues , underEngland , thatB ur l ey musthave br oughtthe s ui ton b ehalf of the
e s ta te s o f J o s h u a a n d J a k u r a H ill, b e c a u s e n o n e o f t h e irlis te d re la tiv e s s u rv iv e d . W e di s agr ee. ¶31. T he w r ongf

ul
- death s t atut e di f

f er ent i at es be tw een w ho ha s the author i ty, or s t andi ng, t o br i ng the s ui tand w hi ch w r ongf ul
- death cl ai m ant s m ay r ecove rw hatdamages , and w hen

### W e hav e recog nizedthat “M issi ssipp i’ s w ron g ful d ea th statute sp ec if ies ce rta in 10 i ndi vi dual s w ho m ay br i ng an ac t i on forw r ongf ul death and ce r t ai n otheri ndi vi dual s w ho m ay bene f

i tf r om the pr ocee ds of

the cl ai m . ” Colem an P ow erm ate, I nc. v. R heem M

f g. Co. , 8 8 0 S o . 2 d 3 2 9 , 3 3 3 (M is s . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c itin g R .D . H u rs h , A n n o ta tio n , A s s ignabi l i t y of C lai m f or P e rs o n a l In

ju ry o r D e a th , 4 0 A . L . R . 2 d 5 0 0 , § 9 [a] , at 51 4 , 1 9 5 5 W L 1 0 2 5 6 (19 5 5 )). 

### 15 they may do so. T he St atut e conf er s pr i or i ty as to w hich l i s t ed r el at i ves m ay r ecove r 10 damages , buti tdoes notpl ay f avor i t es r egar di ng w hi ch pot ent i al w r ongf ul
- death cl ai m ant
m a y b ri n g th e s u it. See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 7- 13 ( R ev. 2004)
. T he par agr aph conc erni ng
w ho m ay br i ng the ac t i on s i m pl y l i s t s the pr os pect i ve pl ai nt i f f s ( the per s onal r epr es ent at i ve, l i s t ed r el at i ves , and i nt er es t ed part i es ) i n a s er i es , s epar at ed by “ or . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 7 -1 3 . N o p o ten tial w ro n g fu l-d e a th cla im a n t ha s p rio rity o v e r an o th e r. See J. J. N ew m an L um berCo. , 9 1 S o . a t 1 1 . ¶32 . T he par agr aph del i neati ng w hich l i st ed rel at i ves m ay recov er dam ages , how ever , does
s etoutpr i or i ty. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 7- 13. I tpr ovi des that“i f [ the dec edent ] has no chi l dr en al l s hal l go t o hi s w i f e”; a nd “ i f

s he has no chi l dr en al l s hal l go t o the hus band”; and “i f the dec eas ed has no hus band orw i f e, the damages s hal l be equall y dis t ri but ed t o t he chi l dr en”; and “i f

the dece as ed has no hus band, norw i f e, norchi l dr en, the damages s hal l be di s tr i but ed equa l l y t o t he f ather , m other , brother s and si s t er s , or s uch of them as the dec eas ed
m ay have l i vi ng athi s orherdeath. ” I d. T hi s l anguage cl ear l y i ndi cat es a hi er ar chy of pr i or i ty as t o w ho m ay r ecove rdamages underthe St atut e. ¶ 3 3 . O u r h o ld in g to d a y re c o g n ize s th e sta tu to ry d istin c tio n b e tw e e n a p a rty ’s a u th o rity to br i ng the w r ongf

ul
- death a ct i on a nd the party’ s a bi l i ty t o r ecove ry da m ages f r om i t . B ur l ey br oughtthi s act i on as an “i nt er es t ed party, ” a s t atus he hel d beca us e of hi s qua l i f

i cat i on asW hoeveri ni t i at es the w r ongful
- death act i on has a f i duci ary obl i gat i on t o al l t he 11 otherpot ent i al cl ai m ant s , w ho m ay j oi n i n the s ui t . S pecif i cal l y, w e have expl ai ned that “ b rin g in g su it i n su c h a re p re se n tativ e c a p a c ity re n d e rs th e n a m e d p lain tiff a fid u c iar y to a ll h e o r sh e p ro p o se s to re p re se n t, . . . . [w h o ] m u st tru st th e n a m e d p la in tiff to p ro p e rly pr os ecut e the l i t i gat i on . . . an d handl e al l f unds r ecove r ed as trus tf unds f orthe bene f

i tof thos e ent i t l ed t o t hem. ” Long , 897 So. 2d at169. 

### 16 an hei r - at - l aw of

J os hua and J akur a H i l l
. B ur l ey’ s l at er - acqui r ed s t atus as admi ni s tr at orof th e ir e sta tes d id n o t co n fe r u p o n h im sta n d in g , as p e rso n a l re p re se n tativ e o r o th e rw ise , to
comm ence the w r ongf

ul
- death act i on , bu tm er el y gave hi m author i ty t o br i ng addi t i onal
c la i ms w ith in th a t a c tio n fo r c e rt a in d a m a g e s o n b e h a lf o f t h e e s ta te s . ¶ 3 4 . He n c e , B u r l e y b r o u g h t ma n y d i f f e r e n tc l a i ms wi th i n h i s wr o n g f u l
- d e a th a c t i o n . He i ncl uded cl ai m s f

orhi s ow n i ndi vi dual i nj ur i es ( s uch as l os s of s oci ety and compani ons hi p, et c. ) and cl ai m s f

orpr operty damage and medi cal and f uner al expens es , w hi ch may be char act er i zed as c l ai m s of the est at es. See Caves v. Y arbr ough , 991 So. 2d 142, 149- 50 (M iss . 2 0 0 8 ) (h o ld in g th a t “th e M iss iss ip p i w ro n g fu l-d e a th sta tu te . . . en c o m p a ss e s a ll
c laim s
– inclu d ing su rviv al claim s w h ich c o u ld h av e b ee n b rou g h t by the d ec ed e n t,
w r ongf ul
- death cl ai m s , est at e cl ai m s , and ot hercl ai m s . ”)
. B ur l ey w as r equi r ed t o br i ng t he
s o- cal l ed “e s t at e cl ai m s ” bec aus e the s t atut e i ns truct s that“ther e s hal l be butone (1) s ui tf or the s ame death w hi ch s hal l ens ue f orthe benef

i tof a l l part i es conce rned. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 7- 13. H ow ever , the f actthatB url ey happe ns t o be s eeki ng the s ame dam ages as 11 J os hua’ s and J akur a’ s es t at es w oul d s eek, namel y m edi cal and f uneral expens es , does not
c h a n g e th e n a tu re o f B u rle y ’s s u it n o r h is s tan d in g a s a n in ter e ste d p a rty to b rin g it. ¶35. E ach w r ongf

ul
- death cl ai m ant ’ s abi l i ty t o r ecove r damages , and the poi nt w hen that abi l i ty becomes avai l abl e, i s a s epar at e ques t i on. T he St atut e’ s f i r s tpar agr aph se t s outt he

### 17

pot ent i al w r ongf

ul
- death cl ai m ant s , al l ow i ng the w r ongf ul
- death act i on t o be br oughtby t he personal r epresent at i ve o f the d ecede nt, by a l i st ed rel at i ve, o r by an i nter est ed party. M i ss. C ode A nn. § 11- 7- 13 (Rev. 2004). In a l at erpar agr aph, how ever , the St atut e pr ovi des that the dece dent ’ s pr operty da m ages a nd medi cal a nd f uner al e xpens es may be r ecove r ed by the lis te d re la tiv e s o r t h e in te re s te d p a rt ie s , w h e th e r o r n o t a n e s ta te h a s b e e n o p e n e d
. I d.

“ P e rs o n a l r e p re s e n ta tiv e ” is le ft o u t o f t h is s e c tio n . ¶36. T her ef

or e, eac h cl ai m ant’ s abil i t y t o r ecove rthes e damages becomes avai l abl e at di f f er entt i m es . T hatdi f

f er ence i s t ant amount t o the f actthatthe es t at e “must , of cour s e, be opened a nd admi ni s t er ed thr ough the cha ncery court ” bef or e the cl ai m ant m ay pur s ue a
w ro n g fu l- d e a th c la im o n b e h a lf o f t h e e s ta te . Long , 8 9 7 S o . 2 d a t 1 7 4 . In o th e r w o rd s , a cl ai m antcannotbr i ng cl ai m s on behal f of an es t at e thatdoes notyetexi st . H ence , B ur l ey amended hi s compl ai nts peci f i cal l y t o s eek damages f orpr operty damage and medi cal and fun era l exp en ses o n ly after h e w as a p p o inted ad m inistrator o f Jos h u a a n d Jak u ra H il l’ s es t at es . B ur l ey had s tandi ngt o br i ng the s ui tas an i nter es t ed party f r om the mom entof J os hua’ s and Jakur a’ s deaths , buthe gai ned the a b ili ty to re c o v e r o n b e h a lf o f th e e sta tes o n ly after th o se e stat es c am e into ex ist en ce an d h e w as a p p o inted ad m inistrator. ¶37. T he es t at e has n o great er r i gh tto bri ng t he s ui tthan does a l i s t ed r el at i ve or an in te re s te d p a rt y . J. J. N ew m an L um berCo. , 91 S o . at 1 1 ; England , 846 So. 2d at1066. L i s t ed r el at i ves , on the otherha nd, do have pr i or i ty i n r ecove r i ng da m ages . A l l damages otherthan thos e f

orpr operty damage and medi cal and f uner al expens es ar e di s tri bu t ed
acc or di ng t o the hi er ar chy of l i s t ed r el at i ves di s cus s ed above. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 7- 13. B uti f none of the l i s t ed r el at i ves survi ves t he dece dent , t hos e dam ages becom e an a s s etof

### Seefoo tno te 1, sup ra . 12 T hatf acti s of l i t t l e consequ ence , though, beca us e B ur l ey has been appoi nt ed the 13 a d mi n i s tr a t o ro f

th e e s t a t e s , a n d h e s t a n d s t o i n h e r i tth r o u g h th e e s t a t e s a s a n h e i r - a t - l a w. 

### 18 th e d e c e d e n t’s e sta te a n d a re a lso u se d in p a y m e n t o f th e e sta te’ s d e b ts, w ith a n y re sid u e to be dis tri bu t ed acco rdi ng t o the w i l l or und er the law s of descentand dis tri bu t i on i n the case
o f i n te s ta c y . Sm ith v. G a rr e tt , 2 8 7 S o . 2 d 2 5 8 , 2 6 1 (M iss . 1 9 7 3 ); England , 846 So. 2d at 1066. T her ef

or e, no m att erw ho br i ngs the s ui t , the damages r ecove r ed f r om the s ui t( ot her than f ori ndi vi dual cl ai m s ) nece s s ar i l y w i l l f al l t o the est at e in t he eventthatnone of t he S ta tu te ’s lis te d re la tiv e s s u rv iv e s th e d e c e d e n t. ¶38. T o sum up, beca us e B ur l ey br oughtthi s w r ongf ul
- death act i on as an i nt er es t ed par ty, he m ay r ecove rda m ages f orthe chi l dr en’ s pr operty damage, i f any, and f

orthei rm edi cal and fun era l exp e n ses, ev en tho u g h h e b rou g h t suitb efo re the estates w ere o p en ed
. H o w ev er, thos e damages ar e, pur s uantt o t he St atut e’ s cl eart erm s , s ubj ectt o the debt s and l i abi l i t i es of J os hua and J akur a H i l l ’ s est at es . Fur therm or e, si nce J os hua and J akur a w er e nots ur vi ved b y a n y o f th e S tatu te’ s listed re lativ e s, a ll o th e r d a m a g e s B u rle y m a y re c o v e r ( o th e r th a n h is
ow n indi vidual dam ages) w i l l al so beco m e asset s of tho se est at es, subjectt o the est at es’ 12 debt s and l i abi l i t i es . H ow ever , Burl ey’ s a bi l i ty, orthe l ack ther eof , t o s eek a nd/ orr ecove r 13
cert ai n damages ats peci f i c t i m es fr om the w r ongf ul
- death s ui tdoes notdet erm i ne the
c h a ra c te r o f h is s ta n d in g a s a p a rt ic u la r t y p e o f w ro n g fu l- d e a th c la im a n t. ¶39. Y V E PA ’ s f

i nal ar gum enti s t hatB ur l ey occupi es the s ame r es tr i ct ed s t atus i n r el at i on t o J os hua and J akur a H i l l as t he cl ai m anti n P ope hel d, and that , ther ef or e, B ur l ey has no s ta n d in g . W e d is a g re e .

### It be ar s noting that

the c laim ant

in Popelikelywas ap po intedadmin istrator o nly 14 

### bymisrepresentin g his relation ship to the deced ent. See Pope , 995 So. 2d at 124 (noting t

hat Paynecl ai me d to be the dec ede nt’ s nephe w, the s on of he r s is te r, but l at er was found t o be her gre at -nephew, theson of her si st er ’s daught er , the de ce dent ’snie ce ).

19 ¶40. Payne, the cl ai m anti n P ope , does not f i t the m ol d of an “i nt er es t ed party” undert he t erm s of the St atut e. Fi r s t , Payne w as m er el y the s on of one of the dec edent ’ s s ur vi vi ng
n ie c e s . P ope , 9 9 5 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 4 . T h u s, P a y n e w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n e n tit led to in h e rit pr operty unde rourl aw s of i nt es t at e des centand di s tr i but i on beca us e he w as t oo f arr emoved fr o m th o s e w h o w o u ld h a v e b e e n s o e n title d , n a m e ly th e s u rv iv in g n ie c e s . See M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 91- 1- 1 t o - 31 (R ev. 2 00 4). Second, beca us e Payne w as notw i thi n the cl as s of per s ons ent i t l ed t o re cover , he coul d notbe, and neverw as , adj udi cat ed t o be an he i r - at - l aw o f t h e d e c e d e n t. P ope , 995 So. 2d at126. T hus , Payne had no r el at i on shi p w i th or
c o n n e c tio n to th e d e c e d e n t at th e tim e o f h e r d e a th w h ich w o u ld c o n fe r sta n d in g u p o n h im
a s a n “ in te re s te d p a rt y ” u n d e r t h e S ta tu te . I d . P ayn e’s lat erappoi nt m entas admi ni s tr at or of the d ecede nt’ s est at e did not chang e t his
. 14 CO NC L US I ON ¶ 4 1 . W e fin d th a t th e c ir c u it c o u rt in c o rre c tly c o n c lu d e d th a t B u rle y lac k e d sta n d in g to
c o m m e n c e a w ro n g fu l-d e a th a c tio n fo r th e d e a th s o f h is g ra n d c h ild re n . A lth o u g h B u rle y d id notqual i f

y as a “ per s onal r epr es ent at i ve” ora “l i s t ed r el at i ve” of J os hua and J akur a H i l l , he
w as an “i nt er es t ed party” bec aus e of hi s r el at i ons hi p as an i nher i t i ng hei rof the dec eas ed chi l dr en, a s t atus w hi ch l at erw as conf i r m ed by t he chanc ery cour t ’ s hei r s hi p det erm i nat i on. The r e f or e , the Y a z oo Coun ty Ci r c ui tCourt ’ s g r a nto f s umm a ry j ud gmen ti n f

a vo rof Y V EPA

### 20

is, rev e rse d , a n d this ca se is rem a n d e d to th a t co u rt fo r fu rth e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith thi s opi ni on. ¶ 4 2 . RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. CARL S ON, P . J . , DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H, LA M AR, CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR. GRAVE S , P . J . , CONCURS I N RE S UL T ONL Y. KI TCHEN S , J. , C ON CUR S I N PART AND I N RESULT W I TH SEP ARA TE W R I T T E N O P I N I O N J O I N E D B Y G R A V E S , P .J . KI TCHEN S , J UST I CE, CO NCU RRI NG I N PART AND I N RESULT: ¶43. I agr ee that s um m ary j udgm ent w as i m pr oper beca us e M r . B ur l ey w as notpr ohi bi t ed fro m in iti a tin g th is w ro n g fu l-d e a th a c tio n a s a n inte re ste d p a rty . H o w e v e r, I d isa g re e w ith the d eci si on ’s i m pli cat i on that a cause o f act i on b el on ging to an int est at e est at e cann ot exi st unt i l an admi ni s tr at i on has begun. ¶44. R el yi ng on D el

ta H eal th G r oup, I

nc. v. E s tate of

P ope , 995 So . 2d 12 3, 126 (M i ss. 2008) , the maj or i ty concl udes that“[ a] s no es t at e had bee n opened a tthe t i m e the compl ai nt
w as f i l ed, Burl ey coul d notha ve been the admi ni s tr at orof none xi s t ente s t at es . ” M aj
. O p. at ¶ 19. I r es pect f

ul l y di s agr ee w i th t hi s r at i onal e, f oran es t at e d oes n otcome i nt o exi s t ence upon comm ence m entof an admi ni s tr at i on i n chanc ery court . T he es t at es of Joshua and J akur a exi s t ed bef

or e thei rgr andf

atherw as gr ant ed l ett er s of admi ni s tr at i on, a s di d a ny and al l caus es of

act i on bel ongi ng t o thes e es t at es . T he f l aw o f t oday’ s deci s i on, and thatof P ope , i s i n t hei ri m pl i cat i on thata ca us e of act i on b el ongi ng t o the es t at e of a dec edent
c a n n o t c o m e in to b e in g u n til a d m in is tr a tio n o f th e e s ta te h a s b e g u n . See P ope , 995 So. 2d at125 ( “a r i ghtof

act i on m us tbe com pl et e w hen an act i on t her ef ori s comm ence d”) ( quot i ng

### 21

Cr aw f or d C om m er cial

C onstr uctors v. Mar ine I ndus. R es idential

I nsulati on, I

nc. , 437 So. 2 d 1 5 , 1 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 )). ¶45. A tthe t i m e M r . B ur l ey f i l ed thi s act i on, i tw as notthathe l acke d s tandi ngt o s ue on behal f of the dec eas ed chi l dr en’ s e s t at es ; he s i m pl y di d notthen have the c a p a c ity t o s ue as a p e rso n a l re p re se n tativ e . A lth o u g h th e ter m s a re c lo se ly re la te d , th e y a re d istin c t. “B as i cal l y put , the capaci ty t o s ue i s the r i ghtt o come i nt o court . I ti s di s t i ngui s habl e f r om s ta n d in g to s u e w h ic h is a r ig h t to re lie f, w h ic h g o e s to th e e x is te n c e o f t h e c a u s e o f a c tio n .” 67A C . J . S. P art i es § 11 ( 2008) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. St andi ng i s notati s s ue; ther e ca n be no d ispu te th at th e c au se o f ac ti o n ex ist ed at th e ti m e M r. B u rl ey fi led h is co m p lai n t. W h at M r. B u rl ey lack ed at th a t tim e w as th e fo rm al ca p ac ity to su e o n b eh alf of h is gran d ch il d ren ’s est at es. ¶46. T her e may be i ns t ance s , as w hen expi r at i on of a s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons i s i m m i nent , and
un for seen ci rcum st ances h ave t hrustone i nto a repr esent at i ve capa ci ty, w hen he or she m ust file su it b e fo re rec e iv in g letter s o f ad m in istra tio n . In su c h in sta n c e s, h e o r sh e sh o u ld b e a b le to toll the s tatu te by fi li n g su itan d seek ing ap p o intm en t i m m ed iat ely th ere after. A n estate’s ab il ity to li ti g ate s h o u ld n o t b e d en ied o r i m p aired b ec au se n o p erso n al rep rese n tat ive o f a dece denthas been f

or m al l y a ppoi nt ed and dul y qua l i f i ed ata t i m e w hen i ti s expedi entf or a cl ai m orcl ai m s t o be pr es erved by the f i l i ng of s ui t . I n s uch ci r cumst ance s , appoi nt m ent of a per s onal r epr es ent at i ve s houl d be s oughtw i thoutunr eas onabl e del ay. ¶ 4 7 . F o r th e se re a so n s, I re sp e c tfu lly c o n c u r in p a rt a n d in re su lt. G R A V E S , P .J ., J O I N S T H I S O P I N I O N .