Opinion ID: 732381
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appellants Subject to Injunction

Text: 38 Appellants argue that they are non-parties to this litigation and have not been appointed as personal representatives of the Estate. They argue that their status leaves them powerless to transfer or alienate assets of the Estate, and therefore incapable of being in contempt of an injunction forbidding transfer and alienation. Appellants acknowledge their voluntary substitution as legal representatives of the Defendant Estate for the purposes of defending this action, but argue that in spite of the substitution, they remain non-parties. 39 Appellants' arguments regarding their status as non-parties are without merit. Rule 25(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that [i]f a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper parties. The substituted party steps into the same position as original party. Ransom v. Brennan, 437 F.2d 513, 516 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 904, 91 S.Ct. 2205, 29 L.Ed.2d 680 (1971). As properly substituted parties in this case, Appellants obviously are not non-parties. 6 Appellants clearly had notice of, and were subject to, the terms of the injunction.