Opinion ID: 2224660
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was Tri-State the proper party to bring suit?

Text: Opdahl claims that Tri-State was not in existence at the time the cause of action arose, and could not be a real party in interest under SDCL 15-6-17(a). The real party in interest rule is satisfied if the one who brings the suit has a real, actual, material, or substantial interest in the subject matter of the action. Vander Vorste v. Northwestern National Bank, 81 S.D. 566, 572, 138 N.W.2d 411, 414 (1965). Although no assignment appears in the record, Hoff conveyed his rights and interests in the silver business to Tri-State, at the time of incorporation in 1981. Tri-State obtained Hoff's right to sue and was the proper party to bring this action. This was not challenged by Opdahl at any time during the trial. Tri-State, as the named plaintiff in the suit, would be barred from commencing the action again. Likewise, Hoff would be barred from bringing the action as he conveyed his rights to the corporation. The purpose of a real party in interest provision is to assure that a defendant is required only to defend an action brought by a proper party plaintiff and that such an action must be defended only once. 59 Am. Jur.2d Parties § 35 (1987), see also Wang v. Wang, 393 N.W.2d 771 (S.D.1986). This purpose is not infringed under the circumstances. As indicated above, the record reveals that Opdahl failed to object during trial to Tri-State as the real party in interest. SDCL 15-6-17(a) provides in part that: ... 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; ... Opdahl had sufficient time to object to Tri-State as the real party in interest and his failure to object constitutes a waiver under our holding.