The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Raley v. Hyundai Motor Co. on Tuesday, June 14, 2011.

The Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner brought suit against Respondent, alleging that a car it manufactured was defectively designed and responsible for injuries she suffered in an accident. But before trial began, Petitioner filed a motion asking the district court to substitute BancFirst in her place as “the real party in interest;” a state probate court had appointed BancFirst to serve as guardian for Petitioner and her minor children and, in light of this, the court allowed for her entire interest in the lawsuit to been transferred to BancFirst, to the exclusion of herself and her children. Respondents prevailed against BancFirst, who did not appeal. The district court erred in its original decision by naming Petitioner as the losing party-plaintiff. Petitioner then appealed the decision before the district realized its clerical error and amended its decision, removing Petitioner as the prevailing party-plaintiff.

The Court determined that generally, and specifically in this case, Petitioner cannot appeal a final judgment rendered against someone else, especially when Petitioner had herself removed as a named party to the lawsuit and voluntarily left the case. Petitioner did not simply add BancFirst as a named party, she had the bank substituted for herself and transferred all her interest in the suit to the bank; at the time, she represented that the bank was the sole party in interest. Additionally, any motion to now substitute the appellant must first be the basis of a proper appeal; because BancFirst did not timely appeal the decision against it, any motion brought be Petitioner is moot. And, the Court cannot consider any intent by BancFirst to appeal without them having actually filed a notice of appeal itself; the bank’s misguided participation in simply joining her motion here is not enough.