McElroy v. Hubbard Properties, Inc., 205 So. 3d 1211

Decedent Louis Chatman died in an apartment fire at Warrior Gardens, owned by Hubbard Properties and Warrior Gardens, LLC.
The Jefferson Probate Court appointed Elizabeth W. McElroy administratrix of Louis’s estate on June 11, 2013.
On June 26, 2013, Carolyn Chatman filed a wrongful-death complaint purporting to act as “attorney in fact for Louis Chatman,” despite McElroy’s prior appointment.
On January 23, 2015, defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Carolyn lacked authority to bring the wrongful-death action because only a personal representative may sue.
The trial court denied summary judgment; defendants filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to vacate that denial and direct entry of summary judgment in their favor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the wrongful-death suit was properly commenced	Carolyn implicitly argues substitution of McElroy cures any defect and the case can proceed	Only a personal representative (executor/administrator) may initiate a wrongful-death action; Carolyn was not one when she filed, so suit is a nullity	The suit is a nullity because Carolyn lacked authority when she filed; substitution does not cure the defect
Whether relation-back or substitution can validate the filing	Substitution of McElroy as plaintiff should relate back and save the action	Relation-back cannot validate a suit that was never properly commenced under § 6-5-410	Relation-back does not apply; substitution cannot overcome the fatal jurisdictional defect
Whether mandamus is an appropriate vehicle to review denial of summary judgment	Plaintiff implies normal appeal suffices	Defendants assert subject-matter jurisdiction issue permits mandamus review	Mandamus granted because challenge is to subject-matter jurisdiction/standing to sue under wrongful-death statute
Applicability of prior cases (e.g., Tyson) distinguishing capacity vs. commencement	Plaintiff relies on cases allowing relation-back when initial filer lacked capacity under other statutes	Defendants distinguish cases where action was properly commenced under wrongful-death statute	Court distinguishes Tyson and similar authority; here action was not commenced by a personal representative, so those doctrines do not apply

Waters v. Hipp, 600 So.2d 981 (Ala. 1992) (wrongful-death action exists only by statute and only a personal representative may bring it)
Downtown Nursing Home, Inc. v. Pool, 375 So.2d 465 (Ala. 1979) (suit filed by non-personal representative is a nullity; relation-back does not apply)
Ex parte Tyson Foods, Inc., 146 So.3d 1041 (Ala. 2013) (distinguishable: dealt with capacity under Workers’ Compensation Act where action was properly commenced under wrongful-death statute)
Ex parte Rhodes, 144 So.3d 316 (Ala. 2013) (mandamus review available for challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction/standing)
Alvarado v. Estate of Kidd, 205 So.3d 1188 (Ala. 2016) (refusing to apply relation-back in wrongful-death context)
City of Birmingham v. Davis, 613 So.2d 1222 (Ala. 1992) (procedural rules like relation-back cannot cure violations of nonclaim-bar statutes)