503 S.W.3d 318
Mo. Ct. App.2016Background
- On Nov. 18, 2009 Darrell Williams Jr. was killed when St. Louis police stopped a vehicle, fired on its occupants, and Darrell died.
- In Jan. 2010 Grandmother filed a wrongful-death petition identifying herself as “next of kin”; she did not name the decedent’s parents (both incarcerated at the time).
- Respondents answered and the case proceeded through discovery with multiple continuances; one week before trial in Apr. 2014 Grandmother voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.
- In Aug. 2014 Mother filed a new wrongful-death suit; defendants moved to dismiss as time-barred under the three-year statute of limitations in § 537.100 (limiting period ended Nov. 2012).
- Grandmother sought to intervene in Mother’s action; defendants argued the saving statute could not apply because Grandmother was not an eligible original plaintiff (first-class plaintiffs — parents — existed).
- Trial court dismissed Mother’s suit as untimely; the court of appeals affirmed because Grandmother’s original petition was not viable (parents were superior first-class plaintiffs), so the saving statute could not save Mother’s later suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grandmother had standing as a proper plaintiff under § 537.080 | Grandmother (and later Mother) contended the original petition by Grandmother should be treated as coming from a proper third-class plaintiff (or that defects could be cured) | Defendants argued Grandmother lacked standing because first-class plaintiffs (the parents) existed, so her petition was never viable | Held: Grandmother was not an eligible third-class plaintiff because parents were superior first-class plaintiffs; her petition was invalid |
| Whether Mother’s later suit relates back under the saving statute (§ 537.100) to Grandmother’s original petition | Mother argued her suit should relate back to the timely original filing, invoking the one-year saving provision after nonsuit | Defendants argued there is nothing to save because the original petition was filed by a party without legal interest | Held: Because the original petition was never viable, the saving statute does not apply and Mother’s suit is untimely |
| Whether failure to formally appoint a plaintiff ad litem or other procedural defects can be cured under Thorson doctrine | Plaintiffs relied on Thorson to argue appointment or defects can relate back where superior plaintiffs are absent and the original filer was otherwise proper | Defendants distinguished Thorson because there the filer was ultimately a proper plaintiff in absence of superior plaintiffs; here superior plaintiffs existed | Held: Thorson did not help Grandmother because its premise (absence of superior plaintiffs) is not satisfied here |
| Whether procedural or equitable considerations (e.g., father’s pro se efforts) affect standing or saving statute application | Mother/Grandmother pointed to father’s attempts to intervene and systemic failures to give him effect, arguing equity favors allowing the claim | Defendants emphasized statutory requirements and limitations policy | Held: Court acknowledged equitable concerns in concurrence but held legal precedent and statutory classes control; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Thorson v. Connelly, 248 S.W.3d 592 (Mo. 2008) (appointment as plaintiff ad litem may relate back where filer is a proper third-class plaintiff and no superior plaintiffs exist)
- Denton v. Soonattrukal, 149 S.W.3d 517 (Mo. App. S.D. 2004) (re-filing by a proper plaintiff after nonsuit can be timely under the saving statute)
- State ex rel. Stephens v. Henson, 772 S.W.2d 706 (Mo. App. S.D. 1989) (addition of proper plaintiffs in second suit may relate back under saving statute)
- Forehand v. Hall, 355 S.W.2d 940 (Mo. banc 1962) (a stranger to the suit who lacks legal/beneficial interest cannot be substituted to relate back)
- Grace v. St. Louis County, 348 S.W.3d 120 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (standard of review for motion to dismiss; treat petition facts as true)
- Martin v. Busch, 360 S.W.3d 854 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (a first-class wrongful-death plaintiff has the right to intervene)
- Manning v. Fedotin, 64 S.W.3d 841 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (pro se litigants are not entitled to procedural indulgences unavailable to represented parties; duty to monitor case)