Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-2046-CM.
February 25, 2005
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
After filing suit in the above-entitled action, plaintiff passed away on September 20, 2003. On January 1, 2004, plaintiff's counsel filed a Motion to Substitute Parties (Doc. 74). James Renne, plaintiff's grandson and counsel, filed the motion to substitute parties and requested that the court substitute as plaintiff "Dorothy Marie Lowe's Trust and the estate of Dorothy M. Lowe." Renne asserted standing to bring the motion as "counsel and trustee to the Trust of Dorothy Marie Lowe." Defendants objected to Renne bringing the motion to substitute on the grounds that Renne had not been appointed administrator or executor of plaintiff's trust and estate in compliance with Kansas probate procedure. In reply, Renne asserted that Lowe had created an inter vivos trust and named Renne as trustee. As the court explained in its May 20, 2004 Order, however, plaintiff's counsel had provided no evidence demonstrating the existence of plaintiff's inter vivos trust that Renne was appointed trustee and was, therefore, representative of the Trust. Nevertheless, the court afforded plaintiff's counsel another opportunity to submit evidence proving compliance with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25.
In response to the court's order, plaintiff's counsel submitted a one-page document entitled "Trust of Dorothy Marie Lowe" (the Trust Document). On July 15, 2004, the court issued a Memorandum and Order (July 2004 Order) denying plaintiff's motion to substitute a party based upon the shortcomings of plaintiff's counsel's evidence. The court dismissed the case and entered judgment on July 16, 2004. This matter is before the court on plaintiff's Motion to Alter Judgment (Doc. 125) and plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 126).
Only limited grounds support a motion for reconsideration. Adams v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1179, 1186 (10th Cir. 2000). The requirements for motions for reconsideration are "an intervening change in the controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice" Brumark Corp. v. Samson Res. Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 948 (10th Cir. 1995). Moreover, a motion for reconsideration "is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing." Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). Renne does not argue an intervening change in the controlling law or that new evidence is available. Rather, Renne argues that the court improperly required that the Trust Document be authenticated in the context of a Rule 25 motion.
In the July 2004 Order, the court determined that the Trust Document was not authenticated. Based upon the serious questions regarding whether plaintiff had the capacity and intent to create a valid trust, the court concludes that the failure of Renne to authenticate the Trust Document is fatal to this lawsuit. In light of the fact that Renne declined after multiple opportunities, to establish the authenticity of the purported Trust Document is further indication of why the court should scrutinize evidentiary issues in the context of a Rule 25 motion. The court recognizes that plaintiff's motion to substitute is not a motion for summary judgment, which does require authenticity of documents. Yet, like a summary judgment motion, a motion under Rule 25 concerning the substitution of parties is dispositive. Indeed, if the claims are not assigned to a trust, the case must be dismissed. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(a). The court disagrees that it is being "hypertechnical" in requiring an evidentiary foundation be laid before Renne is substituted to pursue plaintiff's claims on behalf of an alleged trust.
The court also points out that, in the July 2004 Order, the court discussed in detail why plaintiff's claims would fail on the merits even had Renne properly substituted a party for the deceased plaintiff. More specifically, none of plaintiff's claims survived her death. Notwithstanding that such a discussion was dicta, the court takes this into consideration in determining that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration should be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 126) is denied. Plaintiff's Motion to Alter Judgment (Doc. 125) is granted, to the the extent that the court clarifies that this case is dismissed with prejudice.