Court Opinion

ID: 9529453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:50:57.016602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:48.019165
License: Public Domain

*229LEWIS, District Judge
(concurring in the result).
I agree that the district court is without jurisdiction in the instant case and that the writ should accordingly be made permanent. The majority opinion, however, announces a very broad and all-inclusive rule to the effect that a foreign administrator can never be a party litigant in the courts of this State. No distinction is made between actions where original jurisdiction is sought and actions pending where simple substitution is sought under the Rules of Civil Procedure.2 In the latter class of actions I am not prepared to say a foreign administrator could not be substituted in any case. Recent and well-reasoned authorities 3 under the comparable federal rule,4 clearly negativing the “four corners” rule of the main opinion, supports my hesitancy.
Substitution of parties under Rule 25(a) (1) is dependent, among other things, upon two basic pre-requisites, (a) A cause of action that survives, and (b) a pending action. In the instant case, the divorce was long since final and the continuing jurisdiction of the court over the parties had not been invoked at the time of the death of Don E. Wilcox. There was no pending action as the phrase pertains to substitution of parties. For that reason I concur in the result.

. 25(a) (1) Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.

. Commercial Solvents Corporation v. Jasspon, D.C., 10 F.R.D. 356.

.Rule 25(a) (1) Federal Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A.