Diane McIver's Estate Can Sue Husband Tex McIver for Her Wrongful Death
The Georgia Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's refusal to dismiss a wrongful death case brought against Atlanta attorney Tex McIver by his wife's estate and affirmed that the estate administrator has standing to sue.
October 24, 2019 at 06:09 PM
5 minute read
The estate of Atlanta attorney Claud "Tex" McIver's murdered wife can sue McIver over her wrongful death, the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.
The decision, written by Judge Sara Doyle, affirms a ruling by a DeKalb County state court judge who last year denied McIver's motion to dismiss the suit. The suit was brought on behalf of Diane McIver's estate by court-appointed administrator Mary Margaret Oliver.
While affirming the trial court's refusal to dismiss the estate's claims against Tex McIver—a former Fisher & Phillips partner who was convicted of shooting his wife to death last year—the appeals panel directed the trial judge to vacate the order and transfer the case to DeKalb Superior Court. McIver is currently serving a 30-year prison sentence for felony murder.
In doing so, Doyle cited cases holding it is "within the equitable powers of the superior court" to permit the pursuit of a wrongful death claim by a party other than a surviving spouse who is also the perpetrator.
The civil case against McIver by his dead wife's estate is the first time in Georgia that a wrongful death action has been filed by the victim's estate against the victim's spouse. Oliver sued McIver after the lawyer was charged with his wife's murder and removed as executor of her estate. Oliver was appointed by the probate court to replace him. Diane McIver has no surviving children or family.
The estate suit holds that Tex McIver is liable for his wife's wrongful death because he shot her from the backseat of their SUV as Dani Jo Carter, a family friend, was driving them home from a weekend at their Putnam County ranch. Carter is also named as a defendant in the wrongful death suit but didn't join McIver in appealing the trial court order. Lee Davis, Carter's attorney, has said the claim against Carter has no merit and that she did nothing wrong.
Atlanta attorney Robin Frazer Clark, who represents Oliver and Diane McIver's estate, said Wednesday's appellate decision "falls in line with the state of Georgia's very strong policy that when someone is wrongfully killed in the state of Georgia, there will be a recovery against the wrongdoer."
"Had they not ruled like this, no one would have been able to recover for the death of Diane," she said.
And, she added, state policy holds that "wrongdoers are not going to be allowed to profit from their own wrongdoing."
The opinion "shows a strict construction of the statutes that apply, and that they are construed together," she explained. "I'm pretty comfortable they got it right."
Clark said she intends to start trying the case in DeKalb County Superior Court where she predicted it would pick up right where it left off in state court. "The Court of Appeals makes it clear their opinion is the law of the case," she said. "The law of case is that Mary Margaret Oliver is a proper party."
Tex McIver's attorney, James Scarbrough of Atlanta's Mabry & McClelland, contended during oral arguments in May that as the surviving spouse, McIver—not his wife's estate—has authority to bring a wrongful death claim for her death. Scarbrough couldn't be reached.
"But this ignores the fact that McIver himself caused Diane's death, and although the law contemplates that there should be a right of recovery, it does not authorize a surviving spouse to benefit from his own wrong," Doyle wrote for an appeals panel that included Judges Clyde Reese and Todd Markle.
"The question is not the plain language of the statute … but whether McIver should be deemed a surviving spouse so as to hold the right of action for the wrongful death," Doyle wrote. "And the answer to this question must be 'no.'"
She noted in her opinion that state law allows an executor or an estate administrator to bring a wrongful death action if there is no one else entitled to do so.
Doyle also said the legislature "did not intend that a murdering spouse financially benefit from the murder by possessing the ability to pursue the right of action for the victim's death against any other parties potentially liable for the homicide."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSupreme Court of Georgia Accepts 2 Petitions for Voluntary Discipline With 2-Year Suspension, 1 Voluntary Surrender of License
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250