Opinion ID: 885024
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: ¶ 12. Did the court err in requiring Safeco Insurance Company to ratify Holm-Sutherland's actions rather than substituting Safeco as the real party in interest? ¶ 13. On August 22, 1994, Holm-Sutherland transferred all of its assignable rights to this contract to its bond underwriter, Safeco, as collateral security to repay all loss and expense to Safeco. This transfer of rights did not become known to the Town of Shelby until January of 1998, as a result of a discovery response. ¶ 14. Soon thereafter, the Town moved to substitute Safeco as the real party in interest pursuant to Rule 17(a), M.R.Civ.P. The District Court instead required Safeco to ratify this action, which was accomplished. The Town of Shelby argues that Safeco should have been substituted rather than required to ratify this action. However, while the Town raises this issue, it admits that resolution of the issue makes little difference for purposes of this appeal. Additionally, Holm-Sutherland asserts that it did not convey to Safeco its entire claim against the Town of Shelby and its engineers, and thus retains an interest in this action. ¶ 15. Rule 17(a), M.R.Civ.P., specifically provides that ratification . . . or substitution shall have the same effect as if the action had been commenced in the name of the real party in interest. Safeco's ratification thus relates back to the beginning of this action. We therefore treat Safeco as if it were the party originally performing each action or causing each filing by Holm-Sutherland. ¶ 16. We hold the court did not err in requiring ratification rather than ordering substitution.