CFS 12 Funding LLC v. Wiesen

Background

Jeremy L. Wiesen was the respondent in a proceeding brought by CFS 12 Funding LLC and AC Manager LLC to confirm an arbitration award. He died on or about July 24, 2022. The petitioners moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) to substitute Gavin Wiesen, Jeremy’s son, as respondent in Gavin’s capacity as the personal representative of Jeremy’s estate.

The court had previously denied a similar motion without prejudice because the petitioners relied largely on counsel’s account of conversations with Jeremy’s friend, did not know whether Jeremy had left a will, and had not shown that Gavin was a sole or primary beneficiary. For the renewed motion, the petitioners submitted a copy of Jeremy’s 2013 will and Gavin’s deposition testimony.

Rule 25 Requirements

Rule 25(a)(1) permits a court to substitute a proper party when a party dies and the claim is not extinguished. The court explained that the motion must be timely, the claim must survive the decedent’s death, and the proposed substitute must be a proper party.

The court found the motion timely because the petitioners filed their initial motion within 90 days after being informed of Jeremy’s apparent death, and the court later extended the time for a renewed motion. The court also determined that the petitioners’ claim to confirm the arbitration award survived Jeremy’s death. It noted that subject-matter jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship, that Jeremy was a Florida citizen when he died, and that Florida law provides that causes of action survive a person’s death.

Why Gavin Was a Proper Party

Jeremy’s will named Gavin B. Wiesen as the personal representative of Jeremy’s estate. Gavin testified that the submitted copy was a true and correct copy of the will as his father had given it to him, that he had no reason to believe Jeremy revoked it, and that he knew of no amendment. Gavin also testified that there had been no probate proceeding, that he did not expect one to occur, and that Jeremy had no assets or estate of significance. Gavin described himself as Jeremy’s only child and the would-be heir to anything remaining.

The court stated that a person may qualify as a legal successor under Rule 25(a)(1) when, among other circumstances, the person is named in a will as the executor or is the primary beneficiary of an estate that has not been probated. A state-court appointment is not required before a federal court can determine who is the proper party for substitution.

Gavin said he did not want to participate in further proceedings and questioned why the matter should continue after his father’s death. The court expressed sympathy for his situation but found that he had not identified unfairness that would result from substitution. The court also noted that the petitioners did not dispute Gavin’s statement that the estate had no assets and said they did not seek to hold Gavin personally liable.

Ruling

The court concluded that Gavin was a proper party to substitute for Jeremy. It granted the petitioners’ motion, directed the Clerk to terminate the motion, and ordered the caption changed to identify Gavin as “Solely in His Capacity as De Facto Personal Representative of the Estate of Jeremy L. Wiesen.” The substitution did not make Gavin an individual defendant.