Civil practice – Substitution – Assignment

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff’s niece filed a motion to substitute as a party in interest, it was error to deny that motion, as the plaintiff’s assignment of his interest in the litigation constituted a gift, so consideration was not required.

“Mary Petersen (Mary), the niece of the plaintiff, Frederick Petersen (Frederick), appeals from a Superior Court judge’s order denying her motion to substitute as a party in interest, and from a judgment allowing the cross-motion of the defendant, Chad Wall (Wall), to dismiss Frederick’s claims. For the reasons stated herein, we vacate the judgment and reverse the order denying Mary’s motion to substitute as a party in interest and remand for further orders consistent with this memorandum and order, including a new judgment of dismissal. …

“… On December 26, 2022, Frederick executed a notarized document titled ‘Assignment of Legal Interest’ assigning Mary ‘all right, title, and interest that [he] ever had or may hereafter have in and to’ the ongoing litigation in the Superior Court. …

“… As noted above, the judge denied Mary’s motion to substitute, reasoning that because Frederick’s assignment contained ‘no language suggesting that Frederick received anything from Mary in exchange for his interest in [the] case,’ the assignment was invalid for lack of consideration.

“Mary argues that Frederick’s assignment of his interest in the litigation constituted a gift, and thus, did not require consideration to be valid. Accordingly, Mary argues that it was an abuse of discretion to deny the motion to substitute on such grounds. We agree. …

“We vacate the judgment and reverse the order denying the motion to substitute. We remand for entry of a new order allowing the motion and substituting Mary Petersen as plaintiff. A new judgment shall thereafter enter dismissing the case brought by Mary, the substituted plaintiff.”

Petersen v. Wall (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-009-26) (9 pages) (Docket No. 25-P-46) (Jan. 21, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.