Gomez v. Maricopa County

Citations: 857 P.2d 1323; 175 Ariz. 469; 145 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 38; 1993 Ariz. App. LEXIS 154Docket: 1 CA-CV 91-440

Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; August 10, 1993; Arizona; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Elsie Gomez initiated a wrongful death lawsuit against Maricopa County following the death of her husband, Victor Gomez, while under medical care. The central legal issue is whether a release agreement, signed by Victor's relatives whom Elsie authorized to settle claims on her and her children's behalf, prevents her lawsuit. The court determined that the release does bar Elsie's individual claim but does not affect the claims for her minor children, Maylinda and Michael, because the settlement lacked court approval and no guardian was appointed to represent their interests.

Victor Gomez had entered Maricopa Medical Center on June 22, 1989, due to severe health issues and died on June 29, 1989. His next of kin, as per hospital records, was his girlfriend, Guadalupe Gonzales. Despite this, Elsie, who lived in Texas with their children, maintained her legal marital status. After Victor's death, family members expressed concerns about the medical care he received. On August 9, 1989, Victor's siblings, Abelardo Gomez and Gloria Hernandez, indicated they would negotiate on behalf of the family for compensation. 

Following consultations with county officials, they were instructed to secure proof of their authority to negotiate for all claimants. They returned with most necessary documents, except for Elsie’s power of attorney, which she signed on August 23, 1989. This document gave Victor's siblings the authority to negotiate and settle claims, explicitly noting that the settlement would be binding and that no further claims could be made by Elsie or the children.

On August 28, 1989, a "Receipt, Release, and Indemnity Agreement" was signed by Victor's brother and sister, releasing claims from specified relatives, including Elsie, in exchange for annuity policies purchased by the county. Each of the five children was to receive $100 monthly until age 18, followed by a lump sum of $10,000, while Victor's parents were also provided annuities. The Agreement explicitly omitted any payment to Elsie. Subsequently, the county sought Elsie's signature on a similar release document, which she refused, leading her to file a medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuit. The county moved to dismiss or for summary judgment based on the argument that the claims had been settled under the Agreement. Elsie contested the Agreement's validity and enforceability, resulting in the trial court ruling in favor of the county. 

In her appeal, the legal question arose whether the Agreement barred Elsie and her children's wrongful death claims. Established Arizona law dictates that a parent cannot compromise a minor child's right of action without a court-appointed guardian's approval. The court highlighted that the surviving spouse can settle wrongful death claims but must obtain consent from other beneficiaries, particularly if minors are involved, necessitating guardian appointment and court approval. Since no guardian was appointed nor approval obtained, Elsie's inability to settle her children's claims indicated the Agreement did not preclude her wrongful death action on their behalf.

The county argued for an exception under Arizona's Probate Code, claiming that it did not require court approval for settlements involving minor payments under $5,000 annually. However, the court rejected this argument, asserting that the issue at hand was not the method of payment but rather whether the Agreement settled the children's claims, which would bar the wrongful death action. Thus, the provision in the Probate Code did not resolve the central legal question regarding the Agreement's enforceability.

In Walker v. Stephens, the Arkansas Court of Appeals interpreted Arkansas Code 57-136 regarding the authority of a parent to settle a minor's personal injury claim without court approval. The court clarified that the statute allows for payments to a minor under $1,000 per annum without court oversight but does not eliminate the need for probate proceedings for settling tort claims. The analogous Arizona statute, A.R.S. 14-5103, similarly does not permit a parent to settle a minor's wrongful death claim without court or guardian approval. 

The trial court erred by holding that a settlement agreement barred the claims of minors Maylinda and Michael, as the Agreement did not account for the necessary legal procedures. Elsie, the mother, also contended that the Agreement was void due to misrepresentations by county personnel. However, she had previously authorized her children to settle her claims through a power of attorney, which gave them the same authority as her. The court found no evidence of invalidity or fraud regarding the power of attorney and ruled that Elsie was bound by her agents' actions.

Additionally, Elsie's argument that the Agreement lacked consideration was dismissed, as the county incurred a detriment by providing benefits to multiple individuals, including her children, establishing sufficient consideration for the contract. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the county regarding Elsie, while reversing the judgment concerning Maylinda and Michael, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Victor's children include a child born to Ms. Gonzales after his death and two children residing in Mexico. As of August 23, 1989, no formal settlement agreement was finalized, although Elsie participated in discussions regarding its terms. The trial court's order is treated as granting summary judgment due to consideration of matters outside the pleadings, referencing Frey v. Stoneman. As Victor's surviving spouse, Elsie is authorized to initiate a wrongful death action under A.R.S. 12-612, which allows the action to be brought on behalf of the surviving spouse, children, or parents, or the decedent's estate if none survive. A.R.S. 14-5103 stipulates that individuals responsible for delivering money or property to a minor can do so under specific conditions, including amounts not exceeding $5,000 annually, and outlines the obligations of those receiving funds on behalf of the minor, including protection and preservation of the funds. Ark. Code Ann. 57-136, which has been renumbered and revised, similarly allows for the delivery of funds to a minor or their custodian with specific limits and requirements, including court approval for amounts exceeding $1,000 annually.

The section stipulates that if an individual making a payment or delivery is aware that a guardian for a minor's estate has been appointed or that proceedings for such an appointment are ongoing, the provisions do not apply. Individuals other than the minor or specific financial institutions receiving funds for the minor must use the money solely for the minor's support and education, with allowances for reimbursement of necessary out-of-pocket expenses. Any surplus funds must be reserved for the minor’s future needs, and any unspent balance or property must be returned to the minor upon reaching adulthood. Individuals complying with these provisions are not liable for how the funds are used.

Additionally, Elsie Gomez indicated that a nurse paralegal from the medical center explained that the funds the children would receive were merely an advance pending a full settlement. A power of attorney was executed by Elsie Gomez, who is the legal guardian and mother of Michael and Maylinda, granting authority to Gloria Hernandez and Abelardo Gomez (Victor Gomez's sister and brother) to negotiate and settle claims related to the children with Maricopa Medical Center/Maricopa County. The document, dated August 23, 1989, confirms that the settlement is binding and that no further claims can be made by Elsie or the children. The power of attorney was signed by Elsie and notarized.