Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:03-CV-2749-N.
March 24, 2005
ORDER
Before the Court are Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Amended Pleading filed on September 24, 2004, and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed on December 6, 2004. The Court grants Defendants leave to amend their answer. Because Plaintiffs Tessa Enboden, Billy Spears Haley and Johnny Randell Haley are not proper beneficiaries under the Texas Wrongful Death statute, the Court also grants Defendants summary judgment as to those three Plaintiffs.
I. BACKGROUND
Lee Roy Haley is the biological father of Plaintiffs Tessa Enboden, Billy Spears Haley and Johnny Randell Haley (Adopted Plaintiffs), all of whom were adopted as children by Jack and Maggie Spears. As part of the adoption process, Lee Roy Haley's parental rights as to the Adopted Plaintiffs were terminated. The instant suit arises out of Lee Roy Haley's death where the Adopted Plaintiffs claim to be appropriate statutory beneficiaries under the Texas Wrongful Death statute. Defendants Nova Research, Inc., EDK Companies Inc., d/b/a Sunbelt Driver Solutions, and the Estate of James Alan Wood, deceased (collectively, Nova) move for summary judgment as to the Adopted Plaintiffs because the order terminating Lee Roy Haley's parental rights also terminated the Adopted Plaintiffs' standing to be Wrongful Death plaintiffs.II. DEFENDANTS MAY AMEND THEIR ANSWER
Defendants move to amend their answer to assert newly discovered affirmative defenses. Unless the opposing party can show prejudice, bad faith or undue delay, a court should grant leave to amend a pleading. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Leave to amend should be freely given when justice so requires. FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). Here, Defendants have requested leave to amend their answer within the timetable the Court set in its scheduling order and Plaintiffs have demonstrated no reason to disallow such amendment. The Court is further of the opinion that Defendants should be allowed to amend their answer in the interests of justice. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants' motion to amend their answer.
III. THE ADOPTED PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES
Nova argues that because only the "surviving spouse, children, and parents of the deceased" are allowed to bring an action under the Texas Wrongful Death statute and the Adopted Plaintiffs are no longer children of Lee Roy Haley, the Adopted Plaintiffs have no standing to pursue a Wrongful Death claim. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE § 71.004(a). When children are adopted, an order terminating the biological parents' rights "divests the parent and the child of all legal rights and duties with respect to each other, except that the child retains the right to inherit from and through the parent. . . ." TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.206(b). The Adopted Plaintiffs claim that because they retained the right to inherit from Lee Roy Haley, and the damages in their Wrongful Death claim are in the nature of a loss of inheritance, they have standing to pursue their claims. See Yowell v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 703 S.W.2d 630, 633 (Tex. 1986) (recovery for loss of inheritance is proper in a Wrongful Death case).In Go International, Inc. v. Lewis, the El Paso Court of Appeals answered whether an adopted child can be a proper plaintiff under the Wrongful Death statute. 601 S.W.2d 495, 498-99 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The El Paso court reasoned that an order terminating the parents' rights under Texas Family Code Section 161.206(b) divests both parent and child of all rights with respect to one another except for a child's right to inherit from the biological parent. If the Texas Legislature had intended to make an exception for rights granted by the Wrongful Death statute, it could easily have done so. Id. at 499. Although one proper measure of damages under the Wrongful Death statute is a loss of inheritance, the right to recover for wrongful death is statutory in nature and any recovery does not pass through the decedent's estate. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE § 71.004(a); Palmer v. Coble Wall Trust Co., Inc. 851 S.W.2d 178, 181-82 (Tex. 1992). Rather, any recovery is paid to specifically enumerated statutory beneficiaries. Id. Thus, a Wrongful Death action is not an inheritance claim and the Adopted Plaintiffs have no standing to pursue such a claim.
The Adopted Plaintiffs also argue that this Court is not bound by Go International and should be guided instead by two federal cases holding that adopted children were proper plaintiffs in a Wrongful Death action. Miller v. Alexandria Truck Lines, Inc., 273 F.2d 987 (5th Cir. 1960); Barnard v. Dallas Ry. Term. Co., 63 F. Supp. 344 (N.D. Tex. 1945). Because the instant suit is before the Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, the Court is bound to apply Texas substantive law. DP Solutions, Inc. v. Rollins, Inc., 353 F.3d 421, 427 (5th Cir. 2003). Both federal cases that the Adopted Plaintiffs cite were decided before Go International and without the benefit of applicable Texas authority. See Barnard, 63 F. Supp at 345; see also Miller, 273 F.2d at 900 (relying on Barnard). Current Texas law, as expressed in Go International, is that children adopted out of a decedent's family are not proper beneficiaries in a Wrongful Death action. Accordingly, the Court follows the Go International decision and grants Nova summary judgment as to the Adopted Plaintiffs' Wrongful Death claim.