Opinion ID: 1823830
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Lirot's Capacity to Sue.

Text: A. Governing legal principles. A party must have the capacity to sue in order to commence and maintain a lawsuit. Huffey v. Lea, 491 N.W.2d 518, 522 (Iowa 1992); Dumbaugh v. Cascade Mfg. Co., 264 N.W.2d 763, 765 (Iowa 1978). Here Lirot claims she has the capacity to bring this wrongful death action because she is an assignee of or successor in interest to the executor of the estate. Lirot argues that upon the closing of the estate, the wrongful death claim vested by operation of law in the heirs and beneficiaries of Dyer. As one of those heirs and beneficiaries, she claims the right to prosecute this wrongful death action. Lirot makes the alternate argument that the district court should have given her time to reopen the estate and be appointed the administrator. [1] In considering Lirot's arguments, we begin with a review of the relevant law. The power to maintain a wrongful death action is entirely statutory. Troester, 328 N.W.2d at 312. Iowa Code section 611.20 (1993) preserves any claim a decedent has prior to death. This claim expands upon death to include damages resulting from the wrongful death. Id. Iowa Code section 611.22 provides that an action within the scope of section 611.20 may be brought ... by ... the legal representatives or successors in interest of the deceased. We have consistently held that the right to recover wrongful death damages vests exclusively in the estate representative. Troester, 328 N.W.2d at 312 (citations omitted). However, we have also recognized that an estate representative may assign a wrongful death claim. Id. (citations omitted). In addition, an assignment of a wrongful death claim may occur by operation of law under principles of subrogation. Id. (citation omitted). In cases of complete assignment or subrogation, the claim must be pursued in the name of the assignee or subrogee. Archibald v. Midwest Paper Stock Co., 158 N.W.2d 739, 743 (Iowa 1968) (where party has assigned his entire claim to another, the assignor possesses no claim upon which relief can be granted and is not the real party in interest). B. Capacity as administrator. We first address Lirot's assertion that she should have been allowed time to reopen the estate and be appointed the administrator before the court ruled on the medical center's motion to dismiss. We think that these events would not have assisted Lirot, even if they had occurred before a ruling on the motion to dismiss. In Pearson v. Anthony, 218 Iowa 697, 700, 254 N.W. 10, 12 (1934), we held that a plaintiff lacked capacity to bring an action for an estate when the plaintiff was not the administrator nor the executor of the estate when the action was filed. We further held that the plaintiff's subsequent appointment as administrator did not relate back to the filing of the wrongful death action, thereby retroactively establishing the capacity to sue. Pearson, 218 Iowa at 703, 254 N.W. at 13. In Pearson, the decedent's wife filed a wrongful death action alleging that she was the administratrix of her husband's estate. Id. at 698, 254 N.W. at 11. More than a year later and more than two years after her husband's death, she was appointed the administratrix of the estate. Id. We concluded that the plaintiff had no capacity to sue when she filed the wrongful death action. Id. at 702, 254 N.W. at 13. Consequently, her commencement of the action did not toll the statute of limitations. Id. at 702-03, 254 N.W. at 13-14. We reversed a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and remanded the case to the district court with directions to dismiss the action. Id. at 703, 254 N.W. at 14. We think the same reasoning applies here with respect to any argument based on Lirot's future appointment as the administrator of Dyer's estate. The petition shows that at the time this action was commenced, Lirot did not have the capacity to sue. Therefore, this action did not toll the statute of limitations. Any later appointment will occur after the limitations period has run. Under our holding in Pearson that appointment will not relate back. Therefore, Lirot's future appointment as administrator cannot prevent the expiration of the limitations period. [2] Consequently, there was no reason for the district court to delay ruling on the motion to dismiss pending the appointment of Lirot as the administrator. We now consider whether any claim Lirot has as an assignee of or a successor in interest to the original executor of the Dyer estate can sustain this action. C. Lirot's status as an assignee or successor in interest. In claiming to be an assignee of or a successor in interest to the executor, Lirot relies on our holding in Jordan v. Hunnell, 96 Iowa 334, 65 N.W. 302 (1895). In Jordan, the wife of the deceased was appointed the administratrix of her husband's estate. Jordan, 96 Iowa at 336, 65 N.W. at 303. The estate was fully settled, except a debt owed to the decedent, and closed. Id. The widow subsequently filed a petition to reopen the estate and be reappointed the administratrix. Id. She requested reappointment in order to sue on the outstanding debt. Id. The district court granted the widow's request. Id. The widow, as administratrix, then filed an action on behalf of the estate to collect the debt. Id. The defendant claimed that the district court in the prior proceeding did not have the power to reopen the estate because there were no assets requiring further administration. Id. at 337, 65 N.W. at 303. We agreed, concluding that upon the closing of the estate the claim vested in the widow and heirs of the deceased. Id. at 339, 65 N.W. at 304. We affirmed the district court's dismissal of the estate's suit. Id. Lirot argues that the same situation exists here. She claims that when the estate was closed in March of 1993, any remaining assets of the estate vested in Dyer's heirs and beneficiaries. Her rationale is that the executor's final report operated as a transfer or assignment of the existing chose in action to the beneficiaries. Therefore, Lirot asserts, she is in this sense a successor in interest to the administrator within the meaning of section 611.22. See Iowa Code § 611.22 (1993) (allowing the legal representatives or successors in interest of the deceased to bring a wrongful death claim). The medical center responds that the Jordan case is inapposite. It argues that the rights of heirs to debts owed to an estate are governed by common law. In contrast, the ownership of a wrongful death claim is governed by section 611.22 which places exclusive ownership in the estate representative or the decedent's successor in interest. Moreover, Iowa Code sections 613.15 and 633.336 mandate that recovery for certain elements of damages be equitably distributed to the decedent's spouse and children, a group that may be different from the decedent's heirs and beneficiaries. Finally, the medical center points out that this action was commenced by the estate as the plaintiff, not by Lirot as plaintiff. We need not decide whether the wrongful death claim here vested in the heirs as the debt in Jordan did. Even if it did, the fact that Lirot may now own part of the claim cannot support the present action brought by the estate. Contrary to Lirot's assertions, the Jordan case actually supports the trial court's dismissal of this suit. Assuming that the holding of Jordan applies to a wrongful death claim, the Dyer estate no longer owns that claimthe individual heirs do. Therefore, this action brought by the estate must be dismissed just as the action filed on behalf of the estate in Jordan was dismissed. We are aware that our rules governing amendments allow the substitution of a plaintiff suing in an individual capacity for the same plaintiff suing in a representative capacity. Myers v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R., 152 Iowa 330, 331, 131 N.W. 770, 771 (1911); see M-Z Enters., Inc. v. Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co., 318 N.W.2d 408, 411 (Iowa 1982) (allowing substitution of new plaintiff after contractual limitations period had run); Iowa R.Civ.P. 88, 89. However, these rules are of no assistance to Lirot because Lirot never sought leave to amend her petition to allege a claim in her individual capacity. Rather she elected to stand on the pleadings as they were. Now it is too late to amend. Tigges v. City of Ames, 356 N.W.2d 503, 509 (Iowa 1984) (when the city's third-party petition was dismissed and it failed to plead further as permitted by Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 86, the city could not later amend to add a theory not pled in its initial third-party petition); Halvorson v. City of Decorah, 257 Iowa 453, 456, 133 N.W.2d 232, 233 (1965) (if, after petition is dismissed, plaintiff fails to plead further within time allowed by rule 86, any later amendment is unallowable).