Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Third District Affirms Dismissal For Lack of Standing

In Greenfield v. Stein (3D08-773), the Third District affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the appellant for lack of standing.  The court stated:
Greenfield was never listed in the chain of title of the real estate, and it is undisputed that he was released as both maker and guarantor of the loan. We therefore conclude that Greenfield lacks standing to prosecute DMS’s claims in his own name and that the trial court correctly granted the motion to dismiss Greenfield as a party plaintiff. See Weiss v. Johansen, 898 So. 2d 1009, 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (providing that “[s]tanding depends on whether a party has a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy, with a legally cognizable interest which would be affected by the outcome of the litigation. . . . Furthermore, the claim should be brought by, or on behalf of, the real party in interest”); James Talcott, Inc. v. McDowell, 148 So. 2d 36, 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) (noting the general rule that shareholders, officers, and directors do not have standing to prosecute the corporation’s claim in their own name).

1 comments:

karokahn said...

I hope cases like this start the dominoes falling.

Post a Comment