Opinion ID: 743083
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Lack of Proof Regarding Personal Representatives

Text: 53 Plaintiffs' counsel failed to introduce evidence that the parties acting as representatives for Dickson and James Smith had been properly appointed as their personal representatives. The court, finding that these representatives could not be parties to the action, directed verdicts against Dickson and Smith. 54 Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs a party's failure to name the proper person. Rule 17 states: 55 Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.... No action shall be dismissed on the ground that it is not prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest until a reasonable time has been allowed after objection for ratification of commencement of the action by, or joinder or substitution of, the real party in interest. 56 The Defendants never objected to the lack of proof regarding the status of the personal representatives. The court raised the issue sua sponte. The Plaintiffs argue that once the issue was raised by the district court, they were entitled under Rule 17 to remedy the defect. 57 No party objected during the trial to the failure to name a proper party. The court decided sua sponte, after the close of Plaintiffs' case, that there was no proof regarding the status of the personal representative. According to the district court, Plaintiffs simply failed to prove that they were a proper party, and the district court refused to allow Plaintiffs to cure the defect. 58 Rule 17 specifically provides that plaintiffs should have a right to cure a defect regarding the naming of a proper party. In Lavean v. Cowels, 835 F.Supp. 375 (W.D.Mich.1993), a district court addressed how to resolve the lack of proof regarding a personal representative's capacity to sue. In Lavean, the amended complaint did not allege how plaintiff came to be a personal representative. During the trial, defendant objected to the lack of proof that plaintiff was in fact the personal representative of the estate. At the time of the objection, plaintiff could not prove that she was the personal representative. 59 The court looked to Rule 17 and determined that [b]ecause plaintiff was not qualified as the personal representative at the time of trial, Rule 17(a) would require dismissal of the case, but for a saving provision in the rule. Id. at 388 (emphasis added). The court held that the purpose of this provision was to allow the court to avoid forfeiture and injustice when a technical mistake has been made in naming the real party in interest. Id. The court then afforded the plaintiff a reasonable time (10 days) to remedy the problem. 60 We find the logic of the district court in Lavean persuasive. Upon finding that the Plaintiffs had not properly named the real party in interest, the district court, under Rule 17, should have provided the Plaintiffs time to cure the problem. Plaintiffs clearly would have had that right to cure had an objection been raised by the Defendant. Plaintiffs should not lose their right to cure simply because the motion was made by the judge, and not the Defendant, at the close of Plaintiffs' case.