is so inextricably bound up in the statute creating the right that it is deemed a portion of the substantive right itself. In the other [a statute of limitation], the limitation is deemed to affect only the remedy and does not constitute part of the substantive right.’ “Cofer, 473 So.2d at 987, quoting State Department of Revenue v. Lindsey, 343 So.2d 535, 537 (Ala.Civ.App.1977).” Etheredge v. Genie Indus., Inc., 632 So.2d 1324, 1326 (Ala.1994)(footnote omitted). With a “statute of creation,” “[t]he key is that the right to recover depends upon the commencement of the action within the time limit set by the statute, and if that period of time is allowed to elapse without the institution of the action, the right of action is gone forever.” Ex parte B.W.C., 590 So.2d 279, 282 (Ala.1991)(<HOLDING>). “[T]he wrongful death statute, which provides
holding that there can be only one final appealable order holding that an order which purports to become final upon the happening of an event specified in the order is not a final order and the happening of the event does not operate to render the order final holding that a bankruptcy order is not final unless it 1 holding that an order was interlocutory in nature despite the trial courts certification of the order as a final appealable judgment holding that an action to set aside a final order of adoption has as one of its constituent elements the requirement that the suit be begun within five years from the date of the final order