JONES v. STALICK
2017 OK CIV APP 67
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- Tracie Schmoe died in 1994 owning mineral interests in Seminole County; she was survived by five children including Lawrence, Garyanna, and Lila.
- In 2010 Garyanna and Lila filed affidavits of heirship claiming they (and the Estate of Ray) were Tracie’s sole heirs; later they transferred their mineral interests to Debra Hazelett.
- Lawrence filed a competing affidavit of heirship in 2012; in 2013 (while in his nineties) he assigned his mineral interests to his daughters Shirley Jones and Barbara Petty.
- Shirley and Barbara sued Garyanna, Lila and Debra claiming constructive trust, slander of title, fraud, deceit and conspiracy; they sought recovery of the minerals and punitive damages.
- The trial court held Shirley and Barbara lacked standing to pursue the fraud claims because Lawrence was the real party in interest and tort claims could not be assigned to his daughters; it also dismissed Lawrence’s fraud claims because he never filed his own petition before the pleading deadline.
- On interlocutory appeal the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed dismissal of Shirley and Barbara’s fraud claims but reversed dismissal of Lawrence’s fraud claims, holding Lawrence should have been treated as a substituted plaintiff upon joinder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shirley and Barbara have standing to pursue Lawrence’s fraud-related tort claims after he assigned his minerals to them | Shirley: their assignment of mineral interests and Lawrence’s later joinder made them proper plaintiffs for fraud claims | Defendants: tort claims belonged to Lawrence and were not assignable; thus assignees lack standing | Court: Affirmed—Shirley and Barbara lack standing to pursue Lawrence’s tort claims (summary judgment affirmed as to them) |
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed Lawrence’s fraud claims for failure to file a petition within the court’s pleading deadline after being joined as a necessary party | Plaintiffs: Lawrence was joined as the real party in interest and should be treated as substituted plaintiff without filing a new petition; joinder under 12 O.S. §2017(A) permits substitution/ratification | Defendants: Lawrence never filed his own petition alleging fraud; plaintiffs (daughters) had asserted claims and assignment bars meant only assignee plaintiffs could not pursue them | Court: Reversed—Lawrence, as joined necessary party/real party in interest, should have been treated as substituted plaintiff and his fraud claims should not have been dismissed for failure to file a separate petition; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Weeks v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 895 P.2d 731 (1994) (liberal allowance of plaintiff substitution where mistake or inadvertence caused improper party to file)
- Saint Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Spann, 355 P.2d 567 (1960) (substitution allowed when substituted party has legal right to sue and bears relation to original party)
- Andrew v. Depani-Sparkes, 396 P.3d 210 (2017) (summary disposition reviewed de novo)