Opinion ID: 1750905
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Who is entitled to the interpleaded funds?

Text: The mother first argues that based on this Court's ruling in Carter v. Beaver, 577 So.2d 448 (Ala.1991), she should be vested with . . . the exclusive right to recovery of all proceeds from the action. . (The mother's brief, pp. 6 and 10)(emphasis added). The facts in Carter are similar to those found here. Clayton Carter, Jr., and Mary Beaver were divorced. Rather than having joint custody, however, Mary was awarded sole custody of their minor children, including their minor son, Christopher Carter, who was killed in an automobile accident. Mary filed a wrongful-death action and received an amount in settlement of the action. Carter filed a declaratory-judgment action asking that the trial court order the settlement proceeds distributed according to the laws of descent and distribution. The trial court ruled that Mary was entitled to all the proceeds, and Carter appealed. Carter argued that even though Mary, having sole custody, had the exclusive right to bring the action, the settlement proceeds should be distributed pursuant to § 6-5-410, which states in subsection (c) that [t]he damages recovered [from a wrongful-death action] are not subject to the payment of the debts or liabilities of the testator or intestate, but must be distributed according to the statute of distributions. After reciting the history of wrongful-death actions in Alabama, this Court rejected Carter's argument, stating: Before the 1979 amendment that allowed both a father and a mother to recover for the wrongful injury or death of a child, the courts looked to the common law to see who was to receive the benefits awarded in such an action. The common law recognized the obligation of the father touching the maintenance, education, and care of his family, and in return, the right of the father to the services of the child. In recognition of the father's right to the services of his child, he was given the sole right to bring the wrongful death suit. Because the father had the exclusive right to bring suit, he also had the exclusive right to the proceeds. Mattingly v. Cummings, 392 So.2d 531 (Ala.1980); Jones v. Jones, 355 So.2d 354 (Ala.1978); Thorne v. Odom, 349 So.2d 1126 (Ala. 1977); Peoples v. Seamon, 249 Ala. 284, 31 So.2d 88 (1947). Prior to the 1979 amendment, when the father was dead, had deserted the family, or had become insane or otherwise unable to perform his parental obligations, he lost the right of action, and a right of action then accrued to the mother. Ex parte Roberson, 275 Ala. 374, 155 So.2d 330 (1963). But the mother had a right of action only when the father had lost his right to bring the action. When the mother accrued the right to bring suit, she also accrued the exclusive right to the proceeds from the action. The 1979 amendment to § 6-5-391 allows a mother an equal right to bring an action for the wrongful death of her child. A mother no longer has to wait for the father to abandon his right to bring an action before she is allowed to bring suit. The cause of action now belongs to both parents, and if one declines or is unable to commence the action, the other parent may bring the action. Lee v. Lee, 535 So.2d 145 (Ala. 1988). However, the amendment also made it clear that, if the parents are not living together, the custodial parent has the exclusive right to bring the wrongful death action. Carter does not dispute that the custodial parent has the exclusive right to bring the action, but he still insists that the legislature intended that he should share in any recovery. He argues essentially that the provisions of § 6-5-410, as they apply to the distribution of wrongful death proceeds, should apply. It has long been settled that if a deceased child leaves a parent in the exercise of parental care, a wrongful death action based on the child's death is controlled entirely by § 6-5-391, and § 6-5-410, the section providing for an action for the wrongful death of an adult, does not apply. Adkison v. Adkison, 46 Ala.App. 191, 239 So.2d 555, reversed on other grounds, 286 Ala. 306, 239 So.2d 562 (1970); Peoples v. Seamon, 249 Ala. 284, 31 So.2d 88 (1947). Carter cites Coleman v. Stitt, 514 So.2d 1007 (Ala.1987), and especially the special concurrence of Mr. Justice Beatty in that case, in support of his argument. In Coleman, this Court recognized the fact that a father or a mother, but not both, could bring an action for the wrongful death of a child, and Mr. Justice Beatty, in his special concurrence, did state that the father and the mother, however, now have an equal right to commence such an action, and, it follows, an equal right to any recovery of the proceeds.' Coleman is distinguishable. There, both the father and the mother had a right to bring the action, because they were married and were living together. In this case, it is undisputed that the father and mother were divorced; therefore, the parent having the custody of the minor had the exclusive right to bring the action. Based upon the history of § 6-5-391, the cases construing that section prior to the 1979 amendment, and the cases decided after the amendment was adopted, we conclude that the legislature, in giving the custodial parent the exclusive right to sue, intended that that party also have the exclusive right to any recovery, and we so hold. Carter, 577 So.2d at 451. However, this Court's decision in Carter concerning which divorced parent is entitled to the proceeds from a wrongful-death action was abrogated by a 1995 amendment to Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-391, which added subsection (c): (c) Any damages recovered in an action under this section shall be distributed according to the laws of intestate succession.  [4] (Emphasis added.) Over four years after Carter was decided, the legislature removed any doubt about the distribution of proceeds obtained for the wrongful death of a minor child. Therefore, the distribution of those proceeds in this case is governed by Ala.Code 1975, § 43-8-42, which provides: The part of the intestate estate not passing to the surviving spouse under section 43-8-41, or the entire intestate estate if there is no surviving spouse, passes as follows: (1) To the issue of the decedent; if they are all of the same degree of kinship to the decedent they take equally, but if of no unequal degree, then those of more remote degree take by representation; (2) If there is no surviving issue, to his parent or parents equally . . . .  Therefore, the wrongful-death statute requires that the damages be disbursed in the manner directed by the statute governing intestate succession. Based on the facts of this case, because the deceased child had no surviving spouse (sending us to § 43-8-42), and had no surviving issue, according to § 43-8-42(2), the damages should be awarded to the parent or parents equally. Therefore, because there are two living parents of the deceased, the damages from the wrongful-death action based on the mother's claim against Kendall's liability insurance carrier, which have been interpleaded into court, should be divided equally between them. Justice Houston in his dissent in Killiner v. Wilson, 683 So.2d 947 (Ala.1996), recognized the same necessary result. In that case, Justice Houston stated that even though Mr. Wilson, as the deceased's custodial parent, had the exclusive right to initiate the action based on his son's wrongful death, he did not have the right to all of the damages awarded in the action. In the dissent, Justice Houston stated: After Mr. Wilson filed his action to recover for David's death, but before that action was settled, the legislature amended § 6-5-391 to provide that proceeds received from an action based on the wrongful death of a minor are to be distributed in accordance with the laws of intestate succession. Therefore, David's mother, Ms. Killiner, should have received part of these proceeds. Killiner, 683 So.2d at 947. This result is also consistent with the statute and caselaw addressing the wrongful death of an adult. Section 6-5-410(c), Ala.Code 1975, concerning damages for wrongful death, states: The damages recovered are not subject to the payment of the debts or liabilities of the testator or intestate, but must be distributed according to the statute of distributions. This Court had the occasion to interpret § 6-5-410 in Crosby v. Corley, 528 So.2d 1141 (Ala.1988). In that case, we stated: [W]here the statutory pronouncement is distinct and unequivocal, there remains no room for judicial statutory construction. . . . The meaning of the language in § 43-8-42(2) directing that the parents of the deceased share equally in all amounts not passing to the spouse under § 43-8-41 is plain and must be given effect by the judiciary. 528 So.2d at 1142-43. Based on both wrongful-death statutes, § 6-5-391 and § 6-5-410, the result is the same; damages from a wrongful-death action are distributed based on the rules of intestate succession. In the circumstances of this case, that means that the mother and the father split the damages equally. The mother next argues that the father is not entitled to one-half of the net proceeds received under the UM/UIM provision of the policy purchased by the mother, citing Sprouse v. Hawk, 574 So.2d 754 (Ala.1990). However, the trial court's order was a final adjudication only as to the claim against Kendall's liability insurance carrier involving the disbursement of the interpleaded funds. Therefore, the disbursement of funds arising out the UM/UIM claim or the dram-shop-liability claim has not been addressed by the trial court. The mother argues that Sprouse, supra, supports her petition. In Sprouse, Charles Hawk was the named insured in several State Farm automobile policies. The insured under the policies included Charles Hawk and his spouse at the time of the accident, Mary Hawk. Mary was killed as a result of an automobile accident caused by an uninsured motorist. Mary was survived by Charles and her two sons from a previous marriage. State Farm paid the combined limits of uninsured-motorist benefits to Charles, and the sons claimed that the moneys paid to Charles under the policies should be distributed in accordance with the Alabama wrongful-death statute. The trial court upheld the payment to Charles, ruling that the insurance benefits were devisable as a chose in action under Mary's will and that, therefore, the proceeds passed to her sole beneficiary, Charles. In reversing the judgment of the trial court, this Court stated: Except for the Wrongful Death Statute, there could be no damages of any kind recovered for wrongful death, because no right to damages because of wrongful death existed under the common law. Breed v. Atlanta, B. & C.R.R., 241 Ala. 640, 4 So.2d 315 (1941). The Wrongful Death Statute is entirely a creation of the legislature. In the case at hand, the only damages recoverable result from the fact that Mary Hawk was killed, and the only action available to redress the wrong is vested by statute in the personal representative. That is, in order for the personal representative to recover any damages from the tort-feasor, whether by way of settlement or by civil action, a claim must be made under the Alabama Wrongful Death Statute. Under the Uninsured Motorist Statute, the insurer's contractual obligation is `for the protection of persons insured . . . who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death, resulting therefrom.' Ala.Code 1975, § 32-7-23. In this case, that payment could only be in lieu of, and based on an entitlement to, damages under the Wrongful Death Statute. Sprouse, 574 So.2d at 756-57. Therefore, although Sprouse is cited by the mother, this Court's holding in Sprouse actually supports the father's argument. Finally, the mother argues that allowing the father to collect benefits under a policy of insurance purchased by his ex-wife would constitute unjust enrichment, citing Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc. v. Heilman, 876 So.2d 1111 (Ala.2003). Avis Rent A Car was an appeal in a class action in which one class claim certified by the trial court was based on a theory of unjust enrichment. In holding that trial court was in error in certifying the unjust enrichment claims as a class action, the Court quoted Battles v. Atchison, 545 So.2d 814 (Ala.Civ.App.1989), in stating that `the doctrine of unjust enrichment is an old equitable remedy permitting the court in equity and good conscience to disallow one to be unjustly enriched at the expense of another.' 876 So.2d at 1123 (quoting Battles, 545 So.2d at 815). Nothing in Avis Rent A Car disputes the holding in Sprouse that UM/UIM benefits recovered in a wrongful-death action represent damages recoverable under the Alabama wrongful-death statute. Hence, there can be no argument that the father would be unjustly enriched by receiving one-half of the UM/UIM benefits.