From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McLeod v. Estes

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three
Aug 23, 2001
No. 19152-4-III (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2001)

Opinion

No. 19152-4-III

Filed: August 23, 2001


ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND AMENDING OPINION


The court has considered respondent's motion for reconsideration of our opinion of May 10, 2001, the answer thereto and the record and file herein and agrees that the motion should be granted and the opinion amended. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED the motion for reconsideration is granted and the opinion shall be amended by deleting the paragraphs on page 10 which begin "We conclude . . ." and "We reverse" and the following shall be substituted in their place:

We conclude that Mr. Estes could raise the issue of the real party in interest for the first time at trial. We further conclude that because Mr. Gorman is not the real party in interest, he does not have standing to bring an action against Mr. Estes for the conversion of Coach 811. We reverse and remand to the trial court so that the court may determine the appropriate remedy. The court must decide whether to dismiss the conversion claim on real party in interest grounds or whether substitution or ratification is permissible. See Rinke v. Johns-Manville Corp., 47 Wn. App. 222, 226, 734 P.2d 533 (1987); 3A ORLAND TEGLAND, supra, at 422 (citing Rinke, 47 Wn. App. 222).

Mr. Estes's motion for removal of counsel is denied.


Summaries of

McLeod v. Estes

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three
Aug 23, 2001
No. 19152-4-III (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2001)
Case details for

McLeod v. Estes

Case Details

Full title:DONNA LEE McLEOD, marital status unknown, Plaintiff, EDWARD M. GORMAN, a…

Court:The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three

Date published: Aug 23, 2001

Citations

No. 19152-4-III (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2001)