Shealy v. Campbell
Decision Date | 13 November 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 85-156,85-156 |
Citation | 485 N.E.2d 701,20 Ohio St.3d 23,20 OBR 210 |
Parties | , 20 O.B.R. 210 SHEALY, Appellee, v. CAMPBELL, Appellant. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
An insurance company, which pays the entire amount of a judgment pursuant to a policy issued to an insured tortfeasor and thereafter becomes subrogated to that claim, is the sole real party in interest in a subsequent action brought against a joint tortfeasor for contribution pursuant to R.C. 2307.31(C). (Cleveland Paint & Color Co. v. Bauer Mfg. Co. [1951], 155 Ohio St. 17, 97 N.E.2d 545 [44 O.O. 59], and Civ.R. 17[A], applied.)
Richard L. Shealy, appellee, filed suit against Eric Campbell, appellant, on May 22, 1981, asserting that they were jointly liable in tort to Ruth Ann McClain in the amount of $31,875 for damages she sustained arising out of an automobile collision. The complaint further alleged that Shealy had paid the entire judgment to McClain. Shealy, pursuant to R.C. 2307.31 and 2307.32, sought contribution for the amount he had paid over and above his proportionate share of common liability from Campbell as a joint tortfeasor.
Campbell, after filing several motions, filed a motion to dismiss on December 6, 1983, on the ground that the action was not being prosecuted by the real party in interest. In the attached supporting memorandum, Campbell argued that Shealy had " * * * paid nothing and therefore had no standing in Court to bring the action * * *." It was further maintained that " * * * [t]his action, if any there is, enured for the benefit only of the Celina Mutual Casualty Company which is the entity which paid the judgment upon which this suit is predicated." Shealy responded, asserting in pertinent part that in a contribution action, it is the tortfeasor who is the real party in interest, not the insurer who has simply acquired the right to pursue the action for contribution. Thereafter, with leave of court, Campbell filed an amended and supplemental answer to include the defense of lack of real party in interest.
It was admitted and stipulated at trial that the insurance company had paid the judgment and that each party was fifty percent negligent. The trial court thereafter ruled that it made no difference in whose name the action was brought. The court reasoned that since the insurance company paid because of its contractual obligations to its insured, " * * * the insured is under obligation to the company to help recover that amount which was paid that was more than its proportionate share of the common liability."
Campbell appealed. The court of appeals, in reversing the trial court, reasoned that inasmuch as the company is the owner of the tortfeasor's (Shealy's) right of contribution, pursuant to R.C. 2307.31(C), it thus has the right to enforce contribution and is hence the real party in interest. Citing Cleveland Paint & Color Co. v. Bauer Mfg. Co. (1951), 155 Ohio St. 17, 25, 97 N.E.2d 545 [44 O.O. 59], the court also found that the insurance company was the sole real party in interest. The cause was remanded for further proceedings under Civ.R. 17(A) as to ratification, joinder or substitution of the real party in interest.
The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.
Kennedy, Purdy, Hoeffel, Erlsten & Gernert and Paul E. Hoeffel, Bucyrus, for appellee.
Spurlock, Sears, Pry & Griebling, Robert B. Spurlock and John F. King, Bucyrus, for appellant.
The threshold issue in this case is whether an insurance company, which pays the entire amount of a judgment pursuant to a policy issued to an insured tortfeasor, is the sole real party in interest in a subsequent action against a joint tortfeasor for contribution pursuant to R.C. 2307.31(C). This court holds, for the reasons that follow, that the insurance company is the sole real party in interest in such an action.
It is axiomatic that actions must be brought in the name of the party who possesses the substantive right being asserted under applicable law. Civ.R. 17(A) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
A "real party in interest" has been defined as (Emphasis sic.) West Clermont Edn. Assn. v. West Clermont Bd. of Edn. (1980), 67 Ohio App.2d 160, 162, 426 N.E.2d 512 [21 O.O.3d 457].
The purpose behind the real party in interest rule is In re Highland Holiday Subdivision, supra, 27 Ohio App.2d at 240, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
BANK v. SESSLEY
...provided: A real party in interest is one who is directly benefited or injured by the outcome of the case. Shealy v. Campbell (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 23, 24[, 20 OBR 210, 485 N.E.2d 701]. The purpose behind the real-party-in-interest requirement is “ ‘to enable the defendant to avail himself ......
-
Justice v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
...and that Plaintiffs and Defendants were parties to or parties in interest to those contracts. See Shealy v. Campbell, 20 Ohio St. 3d 23, 24, 485 N.E.2d 701, 702 (Ohio 1985) ("A real party in interest has been defined as .. . one who has a real interest in the subject matter of the litigatio......
-
MOORE V. CITY Of MIDDLETOWN
...right being sued upon to see if the action has been instituted by the party possessing the substantive right to relief." Shealy v. Campbell (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 23, 25. Whether undisputed facts confer standing to assert a claim involves a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Cu......
-
Jodka v. City of Cleveland
...The plaintiff must be the party who will be directly benefitted or injured by the outcome of the action. Shealy v. Campbell, 20 Ohio St.3d 23, 24, 20 Ohio B. 210, 485 N.E.2d 701 (1985). The purpose behind this “real party in interest rule” is “ ‘ * * * to enable the defendant to avail himse......
-
Taking a Stand on Standing: The Real Party in Interest Conflict in Ohio Foreclosure Actions
...waived if not timely asserted.”). 94 Mid-State Trust IX , 2008 WL1838350, at *8. 95 Id. 96 OHIO R. CIV. P. 17(A). 97 Shealy v. Campell, 485 N.E.2d 701, 702 (Ohio 1985) (citing W. Clermont Bd. of Educ. Ass’n v. W. Clermont Bd. of Educ. 426 N.E.2d 512, 514 (Ohio Ct. App.1980)). 98 Id. 2012] T......