March 6, 2006
HarryTho 3/6 Natalee Holloway CommentaryTopics: Natalee Holloway
With all the suspicious developments emerging, it is difficult to embark upon a new topic. Accordingly, I will supplement this evening with some thoughts upon the lawsuit 102254/2006.
The last page of the lawsuit identifies the lawyers for the plaintiffs.
The Kelly Group, P.C.
526 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10036
Signed by John Q. Kelly
Chadbourne & Parke LLP
30 Rockerfeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Elizabeth Ann Twitty and Dave Edward Holloway
Signed by Scott S. Balber
From the foregoing, it is uncertain if the lawyers for the plaintiffs are both The Kelly Group and Chadbourne & Parke LLP or just Chadbourne & Parke LLP. Whichever the case, the plaintiffs are represented.
One aspect of the representations concerns the plaintiffs: Beth Twitty and Dave Holloway. On the surface, it seems imperative to include both parties, as Natalee Holloway was their minor child. However, according to the presiding law, only Beth Twitty can claim damages.
Alabama Legislative Information System Online
Injury to minor child.
A father or a mother, provided they are lawfully living together as husband and wife, shall have an equal right to commence an action for an injury to their minor child, a member of the family; provided, however, that in the event such mother and father are not lawfully living together as husband and wife, or in the event legal custody of such minor child has been lawfully vested in either of the parties or some third party, then and in either event the party having legal custody of such minor child shall have the exclusive right to commence such action.
(Code 1852, §2135; Code 1867, §2531; Code 1876, §2898; Code 1886, §2587; Code 1896, §25; Code 1907, §2484; Code 1923, §5694; Code 1940, T. 7, §118; Acts 1979, No. 79-443, p. 725.)
Specifically, "... the party having legal custody of such minor child shall have the exclusive right to commence such action."
Hence, we must question why Dave Holloway would be listed as a plaintiff. Apparently, Dave Holloway has no rights to any benefit, emerging from the lawsuit. Why is he listed?
By being listed as a plaintiff, Dave Holloway exposes himself in the event that the lawsuit goes south. Clearly, the lawsuit is replete with baseless allegation. The threat of a malicious prosecution claim looms upon the horizon.
Interestingly, it would appear that Dave Holloway knew nothing about the lawsuit when it was filed. In a TV interview, Mia Martinez of WBRC-TV stated that Dave Holloway informed her that he did know of any lawsuit or if one had even been filed. Furthermore, Beth Twitty claimed that she spoke with John Q. Kelly and gave him the go-ahead for the lawsuit, because she trusted him 1000%. There was no mention of Dave Holloway giving any permission to file a lawsuit. I would have to conclude that Dave Holloway was not privy to this lawsuit at the time of filing.
In a later cable news interview, after filing, Dave seems to have acquiesced to the lawsuit ... playing catch up ball, in a sense ... in order to maintain a solid front.
As it stands, there exists a downside for Dave Holloway, but there is no upside. Beth Twitty has both up and down sides.
So, why is Dave Holloway even needed on the lawsuit? Beth Twitty could have done this herself.
If we were to re-read Alabama Code Section 6-5-391 closely:
Wrongful death of minor.
(a) When the death of a minor child is caused by the wrongful act, omission, or negligence of any person, persons, or corporation, or the servants or agents of either, the father, or the mother as specified in Section 6-5-390, or, if the father and mother are both dead or if they decline to commence the action, or fail to do so, within six months from the death of the minor, the personal representative of the minor may commence an action.
(b) An action under subsection (a) for the wrongful death of the minor shall be a bar to another action either under this section or under Section 6-5-410.
(c) Any damages recovered in an action under this section shall be distributed according to the laws of intestate succession, Article 3 (commencing with Section 43-8-40) of Chapter 8 of Title 43.
(Code 1876, §2899; Code 1886, §2588; Code 1896, §26; Code 1907, §2485; Code 1923, §5695; Code 1940, T. 7, §119; Acts 1995, No. 95-774, p. 1834, §1.)
We would discover that "... When the death of a minor child is caused by the wrongful act, omission, or negligence of any person ..." includes Beth Twitty for possible negligence for allowing her minor child, Natalee Holloway, to go on this all-you-drink trip to Aruba, unsupervised. This translates into Dave Holloway becoming a possible claimant against Beth Twitty.
In order to prevent this potential claim, the lawyers for Beth Twitty have included Dave Holloway in their lawsuit. Accordingly Dave Holloway's presence on the lawsuit is designed to prevent a claim against John Q. Kelly's client Beth Twitty for negligence.
In jest, it would appear that Beth Twitty has been running circles around Dave Holloway throughout this entire affair. In just this one page (15) of 102254/2006, we can interpret that Beth implicated Dave Holloway in the lawsuit without his consent, removed his claims of negligence and denied him any benefits from the lawsuit. I guess we can understand now why Dave was left out of the proceeds form the AmSouth Bank FindNataleeFund.
Posted for HarryTho
Posted by Richard at March 6, 2006 10:19 PM
Articles Related to Natalee Holloway:
- HarryTho 3/6 Natalee Holloway Commentary - Mar 06, 2006