§25.6 Analysis

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§25.6 ANALYSIS

The seminal Washington decision interpreting CR 25 is Petrarca v. Halligan, 83 Wn.2d 773, 522P.2d827 (1974). In Petrarca, the plaintiffs/respondents had sued Mason Halligan, who answered the complaint but died while the matter was still pending. Thereafter, plaintiffs/respondents filed a claim with Halligan's estate, which the personal representative rejected. Plaintiffs/respondents filed amotion to substitute the personal representative in the original action, and she appeared for the purpose of filing her objections to the substitution. The trial court granted plaintiffs/respondents' motion to substitute the personal representative as a party defendant even though plaintiffs' motion under CR 25(a)( 1) was not made within the time limit prescribed by RCW 11.40.100.

The Petrarca court went on to hold that the permissive language of CR 25(a)(1) superseded the mandatory language of the...