Opinion ID: 1656409
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether the bank, as owner of the choses in action, may substitute itself as the sole plaintiff and dismiss the 03-CV-030-B claims against it.

Text: ¶ 37. M.R.C.P. 17 states, [e]very action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. As the owner of the 03-CV-030-B choses in action, the bank has the only real interest remaining in those claims. The plaintiffs no longer have a stake in the unresolved lender liability claims asserted against the bank. M.R.C.P. 25(c) [12] concerns party substitution involving a transfer of interest, and states, [i]n a case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party. ¶ 38. Although Rule 25(c) transfers are generally permissive, in this case, the execution sale and purchase of the lawsuits left only one party, the bank, with any interest in the litigation. Because Rule 17 allows only the real party in interest to prosecute its claims, the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to substitute the bank as plaintiff in the 03-CV-030-B actions. ¶ 39. To support their argument that the bank should not be allowed to substitute itself as party plaintiff, the plaintiffs present a hypothetical to demonstrate the inequities they perceive would result if the bank's motion is granted. However, the plaintiffs never cite any authority at any point in their entire argument as to why substitution should be prohibited. See Williams, 708 So.2d at 1361 (parties must cite relevant authority to support their positions); Cook, 697 So.2d at 383 (same). Even if application of the law might be inequitable in rare cases, there are no exceptions in the relevant statutes, rules, or cases that would prevent the bank from substituting itself as plaintiff in the choses in action it purchased. This Court is without authority to invalidate statutes simply because we find they may occasionally engender what we consider to be inequitable results. Such considerations are for the Legislature. We conclude the trial court erred in denying the bank's Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiffs.