Background
Latasha Cook, administrator of the estate of her daughter De’Aryiah Cook, brought wrongful-death and survival claims arising from De’Aryiah’s death at nine days old. After the medical-malpractice case settled for $3.4 million, Cook petitioned to allocate the net proceeds between the wrongful-death and survival claims and among De’Aryiah’s five heirs: Cook, the child’s father DeAngelo Statam Sr., and Statam’s three other children.
At a March 18, 2024 hearing, the circuit court allocated all proceeds to the wrongful-death claim and apportioned 95% to Cook and 5% to Statam Sr. The court later vacated that allocation after finding the minor heirs had not received adequate notice. At the replacement hearing, however, the court would not permit Statam Sr. to testify again, relying on testimony from the first hearing. It again allocated 100% to wrongful death, awarding Cook 87%, Statam Sr. 10%, and 1% to each of his three children.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court vacated the June 18, 2024 allocation and dependency order and remanded for a new, comprehensive hearing. It held that the circuit court abused its discretion by requiring Statam Sr. to proceed with testimony on March 18 when his counsel had been retained the preceding Friday and received Cook’s allocation petition only the day before the hearing.
The error was compounded when the circuit court, after reopening the matter, refused to let Statam Sr. testify at the June hearing and instead relied on the inadequately prepared March proceeding. The appellate court did not decide the proper allocation between the wrongful-death and survival claims or the proper dependency shares. It also declined to decide whether a guardian ad litem should have been appointed, while noting the circuit court’s independent duty to protect minors’ interests.
Key Takeaways
- A court abuses its discretion by forcing an heir to litigate settlement allocation without a reasonable opportunity to prepare.
- Vacating an initial allocation does not cure the procedural defect if the court later relies on testimony from the flawed hearing.
- The remand requires a new hearing with an opportunity for all witnesses to testify and present evidence after reasonable preparation.
Why It Matters
Wrongful-death settlement allocation proceedings affect both the division between wrongful-death and survival claims and the financial interests of individual heirs. Even where the trial court has discretion over procedure, that discretion must permit meaningful preparation and a fair opportunity to present evidence.
The decision leaves the substantive allocation open, but underscores that courts must separately safeguard minor heirs’ interests when distributing settlement proceeds.