A widow who filed a wrongful death action concerning her husband has appealed a lower court’s decision to dismiss her claim, arguing that she should have been granted leave to file an amended petition even though she missed the deadline to be appointed the personal representative of her deceased husband’s estate.
Carolyn Holmes sued her husband’s employer, Union Pacific Railroad Company in 2018 alleging his death from lung cancer was due to toxic substances and carcinogen exposure while working.
“What's at stake for other cases like this is if you inadvertently don't have the procedural step of being declared a personal representative of an estate, is that something you can cure later on in the lawsuit or not,” said Kansas City attorney Jonathan Sternberg.
“It's a fairly straightforward legal question whether a judge has to allow you to cure a deficiency in a lawsuit and I think the answer is yes. The case law is clear that the answer is yes.”
Holmes eventually did procure the title of personal representative but it was seven days after a 30-day stay the circuit court allowed for her to file an amended petition, which is why she filed an amended petition out of time. But, the circuit court overruled her motion and sustained Union Pacific’s motion to dismiss, according to the appellate brief.
“Mrs. Holmes certainly did give an explanation but it's not that simple to be declared someone's personal representative of an estate,” Sternberg told St. Louis Record. “First, you have to find and hire a probate lawyer. Second, she had to obtain renunciations from other heirs in order to have the ability to be the personal representative and then they had to wait for a probate judge to grant the application and all of that took 36 days.”
According to Missouri law, the state has a limitation on a person being appointed the personal representative of a deceased person's estate, which is one year from the person's death.
“In this case, the appointment wasn't sought until three years later,” Sternberg said in an interview. “The probate court granted the appointment. Who knows whether it should have or not but the railroad was also trying to argue that the appointment itself was void.”
The litigants argued before the Missouri Supreme Court remotely on Jan. 20.
“The lower court judge erroneously thought that by the plaintiffs not filing having been appointed the personal representative, that he lacked jurisdiction over the case, and that's one problem in the case is that he's simply wrong about that and the railroad somewhat has conceded that at this point," Sternberg added.