RENDERED: APRIL 8, 2022; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
NO. 2020-CA-1048-MR
THE ESTATE OF AYANNA HENRY, DECEASED (SUCESSOR ADMINISTRATOR NOT YET APPOINTED); AND THE ESTATE OF LENA BAILEY, DECEASED (SUCCESSOR ADMINISTRATOR NOT YET APPOINTED) APPELLANTS
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE ANGELA MCCORMICK BISIG, JUDGE ACTION NO. 15-CI-002902
AMERICAN WATER HEATER COMPANY AND MR. ROOF OF LOUISVILLE, LLC APPELLEES
OPINION VACATING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CALDWELL, COMBS, AND L. THOMPSON, JUDGES.
COMBS, JUDGE: The Estate of Ayanna Henry and the Estate of Lena Bailey
(referred to collectively as the Estates) appeal the dismissal of their civil action against American Water Heater Company (American Water Heater) and Mr. Roof
of Louisville, LLC (Mr. Roof). On appeal, the Estates argue that the trial court
erred by concluding that they failed to timely substitute a new personal
representative following the death of the original personal representative, who had
been appointed to act for them both. They contend that the provisions of KRS1
395.278 (which impose a statutory limitations period for revivor of an action
following the death of a party) do not apply following the death of an estate’s
personal representative. After our review, we agree. Consequently, we vacate and
remand for further proceedings.
On June 18, 2014, eleven-year-old Ayanna Henry was found dead in
the basement of her home. Her mother, Shanita Bailey; grandmother, Lena Bailey;
and her little sister, Aniya Henry, reported headaches and flu-like symptoms.
Therefore, first-responders tested for elevated levels of carbon monoxide in the
home. The tests were positive for excessive carbon monoxide.
On June 11, 2015, Shanita Bailey was appointed administrator of the
Estate of Ayanna Henry. On the same day, Lena Bailey and Shanita Bailey,
individually; and Shanita Bailey in her capacity as administrator of Ayanna’s
Estate and as next friend of Aniya, timely filed a personal injury and wrongful
death action against multiple defendants, including American Water Heater and
1 Kentucky Revised Statutes.
-2- Mr. Roof. They alleged that the negligence of American Water Heater and Mr.
Roof caused Ayanna’s death and personal injury to Lena Bailey, Shanita Bailey,
and Aniya Henry.
Just weeks later, Lena Bailey died, and her action abated. Shanita
Bailey was appointed personal representative of Lena’s Estate, and she timely
revived Lena’s claims on March 29, 2016. On August 5, 2016, Shanita Bailey
died. Her individual claims abated.
Following Shanita Bailey’s death, counsel undertook to determine
who would be substituted as administrator of each of the three decedents’ estates.
On December 5, 2018, Brian Cochran, Lena Bailey’s long-term partner and father
of Shanita Bailey, was appointed by the probate court as administrator of the
estates of Shanita Bailey, Lena Bailey, and Ayanna Henry. However, Shanita
Bailey’s individual claims were not timely revived. They were dismissed, and this
appeal does not deal with that issue.
Subsequently, American Water Heater and Mr. Roof filed motions for
summary judgment. They argued that the claims of the Estates of Lena Bailey and
Ayanna Henry had not been timely revived pursuant to the provisions of KRS
395.278 (“the revivor statute”). The Estates argued that the provisions of the
revivor statute were inapplicable. They contended that a new personal
representative, Brian Cochran, could be substituted for Shanita Bailey pursuant to
-3- the provision of KRS 395.280. This statute provides a summary procedure by
which the court may order a substitute personal representative to replace one who
dies or is removed from service. It does not impose an independent period of
limitations on the procedure.
On June 14, 2020, the Estates filed a motion to substitute under the
provisions of KRS 395.280. The Estates argued that the statutory limitations
period for revivor under KRS 395.278 could not be grafted onto the provisions of
KRS 395.280 providing for the substitution of an estate’s personal representative.
The circuit court’s order was entered on July 23, 2020. Without
addressing the motion filed by the Estates to substitute a personal representative
for the deceased Shanita Bailey, the court concluded that the statutory limitations
period of the revivor statute applied and that the limitations period had expired
without the claims of the Estates having been revived. Consequently, it dismissed
the Estates’ claims. This appeal followed.
On October 19, 2020, the Estates filed in this Court a motion for
substitution. They requested that Brian Cochran be substituted as successor
administrator so that the appeal could proceed. On October 26, 2020, Mr. Roof
filed its response. It argued that this court lacked jurisdiction to order substitution
of the Estates’ original personal representative.
-4- On October 29, 2020, American Water Heater responded to the
Estates’ motion and made a motion to dismiss the appeal. It argued that the motion
for substitution was untimely and that counsel for the Estates sought to prosecute
the appeal without a live client. It contended that the Estates could not act without
a personal representative and for that reason the appeal must be dismissed. The
motions were passed to this merits panel for resolution by order entered on June 4,
2021. The resolution of the motions and the merits of the appeal are mutually
intertwined.
Because this matter involves statutory interpretation -- i.e., the
meaning, interrelationship, and application of the provisions of KRS 395.278 and
KRS 395.280 -- we review the lower court’s decision de novo. Hauber v. Hauber,
600 S.W.3d 204 (Ky. 2020). We do not defer to the circuit court’s interpretation of
the statutes. Id.
At common law, when a party died, his legal proceedings abated; the
proceedings died with him. Hardin County v. Wilkerson, 255 S.W.3d 923 (Ky.
2008). There was no method by which the decedent’s action could continue to be
maintained. Id.
In contrast to the common law, the provisions of KRS 395.278
provide that an abated action can be revived. However, because the decedent’s
action has abated, it cannot continue to be prosecuted in his name. Id. The
-5- original action remains on the docket only as a placeholder for an action revived by
the personal representative of the decedent’s estate. Id. Revivor is the vehicle by
which successors-in-interest give notice to the court of the passing of the original
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
RENDERED: APRIL 8, 2022; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
NO. 2020-CA-1048-MR
THE ESTATE OF AYANNA HENRY, DECEASED (SUCESSOR ADMINISTRATOR NOT YET APPOINTED); AND THE ESTATE OF LENA BAILEY, DECEASED (SUCCESSOR ADMINISTRATOR NOT YET APPOINTED) APPELLANTS
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE ANGELA MCCORMICK BISIG, JUDGE ACTION NO. 15-CI-002902
AMERICAN WATER HEATER COMPANY AND MR. ROOF OF LOUISVILLE, LLC APPELLEES
OPINION VACATING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CALDWELL, COMBS, AND L. THOMPSON, JUDGES.
COMBS, JUDGE: The Estate of Ayanna Henry and the Estate of Lena Bailey
(referred to collectively as the Estates) appeal the dismissal of their civil action against American Water Heater Company (American Water Heater) and Mr. Roof
of Louisville, LLC (Mr. Roof). On appeal, the Estates argue that the trial court
erred by concluding that they failed to timely substitute a new personal
representative following the death of the original personal representative, who had
been appointed to act for them both. They contend that the provisions of KRS1
395.278 (which impose a statutory limitations period for revivor of an action
following the death of a party) do not apply following the death of an estate’s
personal representative. After our review, we agree. Consequently, we vacate and
remand for further proceedings.
On June 18, 2014, eleven-year-old Ayanna Henry was found dead in
the basement of her home. Her mother, Shanita Bailey; grandmother, Lena Bailey;
and her little sister, Aniya Henry, reported headaches and flu-like symptoms.
Therefore, first-responders tested for elevated levels of carbon monoxide in the
home. The tests were positive for excessive carbon monoxide.
On June 11, 2015, Shanita Bailey was appointed administrator of the
Estate of Ayanna Henry. On the same day, Lena Bailey and Shanita Bailey,
individually; and Shanita Bailey in her capacity as administrator of Ayanna’s
Estate and as next friend of Aniya, timely filed a personal injury and wrongful
death action against multiple defendants, including American Water Heater and
1 Kentucky Revised Statutes.
-2- Mr. Roof. They alleged that the negligence of American Water Heater and Mr.
Roof caused Ayanna’s death and personal injury to Lena Bailey, Shanita Bailey,
and Aniya Henry.
Just weeks later, Lena Bailey died, and her action abated. Shanita
Bailey was appointed personal representative of Lena’s Estate, and she timely
revived Lena’s claims on March 29, 2016. On August 5, 2016, Shanita Bailey
died. Her individual claims abated.
Following Shanita Bailey’s death, counsel undertook to determine
who would be substituted as administrator of each of the three decedents’ estates.
On December 5, 2018, Brian Cochran, Lena Bailey’s long-term partner and father
of Shanita Bailey, was appointed by the probate court as administrator of the
estates of Shanita Bailey, Lena Bailey, and Ayanna Henry. However, Shanita
Bailey’s individual claims were not timely revived. They were dismissed, and this
appeal does not deal with that issue.
Subsequently, American Water Heater and Mr. Roof filed motions for
summary judgment. They argued that the claims of the Estates of Lena Bailey and
Ayanna Henry had not been timely revived pursuant to the provisions of KRS
395.278 (“the revivor statute”). The Estates argued that the provisions of the
revivor statute were inapplicable. They contended that a new personal
representative, Brian Cochran, could be substituted for Shanita Bailey pursuant to
-3- the provision of KRS 395.280. This statute provides a summary procedure by
which the court may order a substitute personal representative to replace one who
dies or is removed from service. It does not impose an independent period of
limitations on the procedure.
On June 14, 2020, the Estates filed a motion to substitute under the
provisions of KRS 395.280. The Estates argued that the statutory limitations
period for revivor under KRS 395.278 could not be grafted onto the provisions of
KRS 395.280 providing for the substitution of an estate’s personal representative.
The circuit court’s order was entered on July 23, 2020. Without
addressing the motion filed by the Estates to substitute a personal representative
for the deceased Shanita Bailey, the court concluded that the statutory limitations
period of the revivor statute applied and that the limitations period had expired
without the claims of the Estates having been revived. Consequently, it dismissed
the Estates’ claims. This appeal followed.
On October 19, 2020, the Estates filed in this Court a motion for
substitution. They requested that Brian Cochran be substituted as successor
administrator so that the appeal could proceed. On October 26, 2020, Mr. Roof
filed its response. It argued that this court lacked jurisdiction to order substitution
of the Estates’ original personal representative.
-4- On October 29, 2020, American Water Heater responded to the
Estates’ motion and made a motion to dismiss the appeal. It argued that the motion
for substitution was untimely and that counsel for the Estates sought to prosecute
the appeal without a live client. It contended that the Estates could not act without
a personal representative and for that reason the appeal must be dismissed. The
motions were passed to this merits panel for resolution by order entered on June 4,
2021. The resolution of the motions and the merits of the appeal are mutually
intertwined.
Because this matter involves statutory interpretation -- i.e., the
meaning, interrelationship, and application of the provisions of KRS 395.278 and
KRS 395.280 -- we review the lower court’s decision de novo. Hauber v. Hauber,
600 S.W.3d 204 (Ky. 2020). We do not defer to the circuit court’s interpretation of
the statutes. Id.
At common law, when a party died, his legal proceedings abated; the
proceedings died with him. Hardin County v. Wilkerson, 255 S.W.3d 923 (Ky.
2008). There was no method by which the decedent’s action could continue to be
maintained. Id.
In contrast to the common law, the provisions of KRS 395.278
provide that an abated action can be revived. However, because the decedent’s
action has abated, it cannot continue to be prosecuted in his name. Id. The
-5- original action remains on the docket only as a placeholder for an action revived by
the personal representative of the decedent’s estate. Id. Revivor is the vehicle by
which successors-in-interest give notice to the court of the passing of the original
party; revivor signals an intent to take on the rights and liabilities associated with
the original action. Estate of Benton by Marcum v. Currin, 615 S.W.3d 34 (Ky.
2021).
Pursuant to the provisions of KRS 395.278, the period during which
an action may be revived by the successor or personal representative of the
deceased party is expressly limited to one year. That provision operates as a
statute of limitations; therefore, the period set forth in the statute is mandatory, and
where a motion “to revive the action and to substitute the successor or personal
representative of the deceased party is not made within the prescribed time, the
action may be dismissed as to the deceased party. CR[2] 25.01(1).” Estate of
Benton, 615 S.W.3d at 38 (quoting Hammons v. Tremco, Inc., 887 S.W.2d 336,
338 (Ky. 1994)).
In this case, Lena Bailey’s action abated upon her death. Shanita
Bailey was duly appointed personal representative of Lena’s Estate, and Shanita
revived Lena’s claims on March 29, 2016. There is no dispute concerning the
timeliness of the revivor of Lena Bailey’s action.
2 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
-6- On August 5, 2016, Shanita Bailey died. Upon her death, Shanita’s
individual claims abated; they were not revived pursuant to the provisions of KRS
395.278. Consequently, they were dismissed pursuant to the provisions of CR
25.01. Those individual claims are irrelevant to this appeal.
The dispute on appeal focuses only upon what happened next. On
December 5, 2018, Brian Cochran was appointed by the probate court as
administrator of the Estates of Lena Bailey and Ayanna Henry. On June 14, 2020,
well beyond the period prescribed by the provisions of KRS 395.278, the Estates
filed a motion to substitute under the provisions of KRS 395.280. The statute
provides as follows:
When any personal representative commences an action or is sued, and then dies, is removed or is superseded by another before the termination of the action, his successor may, by order of court, be substituted for the original plaintiff or defendant.
Because it erroneously believed that Brian Cochran’s substitution under KRS
395.280 was time-barred, the circuit court declined to enter the order permitted by
the statute.
The statute provides a summary procedure by which an estate’s
personal representative may be replaced upon her death or removal. Upon the
appointment of the estate’s representative, the mechanism for administering the
decedent’s assets and liabilities has been implemented; the conduct of the
-7- decedent’s estate is supervised by the probate court. Death or removal of the
appointed representative does not cause the estate’s action to abate. Instead, her
death or removal merely requires substitution with yet another representative.
The procedure established by KRS 395.280 does not refer to revivor
of an action, and it does not contain a period of limitations. Revivor applies as a
concept only to the estate of a deceased person -- not to the replacement of a
personal representative who was charged with administration of the revived action
brought in the name of the estate. The limitations period established by the
provisions of KRS 395.278 governs the procedure by which a deceased party’s
action is revived in the name of her estate’s personal representative. It is not
applicable to the subsequent substitution of the personal representative.
Consequently, the trial court erred by failing to order the substitution of the
Estates’ personal representative.
The order of the Jefferson Circuit Court is vacated. This case is
remanded for further proceedings.
ALL CONCUR.
-8- BRIEFS FOR APPELLANTS: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE AMERICAN WATER HEATER Kevin M. Monsour COMPANY: Louisville, Kentucky Byron N. Miller Charles E. Soechting, Jr. Joseph A. Wright Dallas, Texas Louisville, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE MR. ROOF OF LOUISVILLE, LLC:
John R. Martin, Jr. Hunter Rommelman Louisville, Kentucky
-9-