S. E. BASTIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE E. BATCHELOR AND ALFREDO ZANATTI, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Bastida sold shares to defendants with installment payments secured by a return clause. Defendants later assigned the payment contract to Aero Finance as collateral for a loan and defaulted on payments. The trial court granted a directed verdict for defendants on the basis that Aero Finance was an indispensable party, but the appellate court reversed, holding that Bastida retained sufficient interest to maintain the action as the real party in interest.
Aero Finance is not an indispensable party. Bastida, as the original party to the share purchase contract and the individual with a sufficient interest to gain or lose from the outcome, is the real party in interest with standing to prosecute the action without joining Aero Finance.
[1] A party to whom a contract is made for the benefit of another is not required to join the beneficial owner in an action on the contract.
[2] An assignee of a contract as collateral security is not an indispensable party to an action on that contract when the assignor retains a sufficient interest.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Every action may be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.”
Establishes the foundational rule that allows parties with sufficient interest to maintain an action without joining all potentially interested parties
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBastida sold Aeronaves del Peru shares to appellees Batchelor and Zanatti with installment payments; shares were to be returned upon default. Subseque…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Real Party In Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
JORGENSON, Judge.
S. E. Bastida, plaintiff below, appeals from a directed verdict rendered in favor of defendants, George E. Batchelor and Alfredo Zanatti, at the close of plaintiff’s case. We fail to see that the basis as stated by the trial court, i.e., the absence of an indispensable party, is controlling, and reverse.
Bastida sold shares in Aeronaves del Peru, S. A. to appellees.1 The purchase price was to be paid in set installments and, in the event of default, the shares were to be returned.
Independent of and subsequent to the foregoing transaction, appellee George E. Batchelor made a cash loan to appellant, financed through one of Batchelor’s corporations, Aero Finance, Inc.2 The collateral for the loan was the assignment of the contract reflecting payment due for the Aeronaves shares. Defendants failed to complete payment and Bastida initiated suit against them. At the close of plaintiff’s case, defendants contended the issues could not be decided without the participation of Aero Finance, the assignee of the shares. The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of Batchelor and dismissed the action with respect to Zanatti.
Aero Finance is not an indispensable party. The record reflects that the assignment to Aero Finance was as collateral. The value of the collateral was disproportionate to the loan and the business relationships of the defendants and Aero Finance were intertwined. Bastida retains a sufficient interest in the contract to maintain his position as the proper party plaintiff. “Every action may be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.210. See also Tampa Properties, Inc. v. Great American Mortgage Investors, 333 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Bastida is the individual who stood to lose or gain and, thus, is the real party in interest. H. Trawick, Florida Practice and Procedure, § 4-3 (1981). As we noted in Stanley Fine Furniture, Inc. v. North River Insurance Company, 411 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982):
3A Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 17.13 (2d ed. 1979), in discussing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a), which is the federal counterpart to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.210(a), states: The inclusion [of this provision] was to make it clear that a party with whom or in whose name a contract has been made for the benefit of another was not to be deprived of his common law right because another was the beneficial owner, and also to make certain that he need not join the beneficial owner. Id. at 211, n. 1.
An indispensable party has been defined as one without whom the rights of others cannot be determined. Bernstein v. Dwork, 320 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Grammer v. Roman, 174 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). The absence of Aero Finance does not affect the rights of either of the appel-lees or those of Aero Finance.
Reversed and remanded.
. Viewed in a light most favorable to appellees, Alfredo Zanatti was the purchaser of the stock and George Batchelor was a guarantor of performance on Zanatti’s behalf.
. This secondary transaction is not an issue on this appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Dep't OF Revenue v. James (Willie) Cummings, 930 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2006)…interests of another party in the action. Hertz Corp. v. Piccolo, 453 So. 2d 12, 14 n. 3 (Fla.1984) (describing indispensable parties as ones so essential to a suit that no final decision can be rendered without their joinder); Bastida v. Batchelor, 418 So. 2d 297, 299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (“An indispensable party [is] one without whom the rights of others cannot be determined.”). As we stated in Oakland Properties Corp. v. Hogan, 96 Fla. 40, 117 So. 846, 848 (1928) (quoting Indian River Mfg. Co. v. Wooten, 48…
-
TWO Islands Dev. Corp. v. Clarke, 157 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…0 So. 2d. 604, 607 (Fla.2006) (citing Hertz Corp. v. Piccolo, 453 So. 2d 12, 14 n. 3 (Fla.1984) (describing indispensable parties as ones so essential to a suit that no final decision can be rendered without their joinder), and Bastida v. Batchelor, 418 So. 2d 297, 299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (“An indispensable party [is] one without whom the rights of others cannot be determined.”)); see also Stevens, 15 So. 3d at 754. We conclude that the temporary injunction directly interferes with the rights of parties who w…
Authorities Cited
- Grammer v. Roman, 174 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Bernstein v. Dwork, 320 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Tampa Props., Inc. v. Great Am. Mortg. Invs., 333 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Stanley Fine Furniture, Inc. v. N. River Ins. Co., 411 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)