ALL COMP CONST. CO., LLC v. Ford, No. 93,272.

• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
• Writing for the Court: GARRETT.
• Citation: 2000 OK CIV APP 38,999 P.2d 1122
• Docket Number: No. 93,272.
• Decision Date: 25 February 2000
• Parties: ALL COMP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Roy FORD d/b/a Triple A Plumbing & Heating, Defendant/Appellee.

999 P.2d 1122
2000 OK CIV APP 38

ALL COMP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
Roy FORD d/b/a Triple A Plumbing & Heating, Defendant/Appellee

No. 93,272.

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1.

February 25, 2000.

Warren Gotcher, Gotcher & Belote, McAlester, Oklahoma, for Appellant.

Stephen C. Wilkerson, Wilkerson, Wassall & Warman, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and George Zellmer, McAlester, Oklahoma, for Appellee.

Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1.

OPINION

GARRETT, Judge:

¶ 1 All Comp Construction Company, Plaintiff/Appellant (All Comp), a limited liability company,¹ was hired as general contractor to construct a building on property owned by Bettina Compton. All Comp subcontracted with Roy Ford d/b/a Triple A

999 P.2d 1123

Plumbing and Heating, Defendant/Appellee (Ford), to install a septic system for the building. Subsequently, All Comp sued Ford for breach of the sub-contract, alleging that Ford was negligent in the installation of the septic system and that it had repaired Ford's bad job at its [All Comp] expense. All Comp also sought damages for mental stress and anguish

¶ 2 Ford answered and filed a motion for summary judgment. Ford alleged All Comp was not the real party in interest because it did not own the premises upon which the building was being constructed. Ford also contended that since All Comp was not a "real person", it could not suffer mental stress and anguish. Ford attached evidentiary materials which showed All Comp to be the general contractor, and that the actual owner of the premises was Bettina Compton. In its response, All Comp alleged Bettina Compton was the owner of the real property, but that All Comp owned the improvements (the building) on the property because it had not yet transferred the improvements to Bettina Compton by bill of sale.

¶ 3 The court sustained Ford's motion for summary judgment. All Comp appeals and contends it is the real party in interest. The "real party in interest," is one in whose name the cause of action must be prosecuted, and is the party legally entitled to the proceeds of a claim in litigation. See, 12 O.S.1991 § 2017(A); Oklahoma Quarter Horse Racing Association v. Remington Park, Inc., 1999 OK CIV APP 75, 987 P.2d 1216. The purpose of the "real party in interest" rule, so far as the defendant is concerned, is assurance that the defendant will not be subjected later to a second suit for same cause. ...