In a recent opinion issued by Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal, the court affirmed that, where a motion to substitute party plaintiff is granted but the complaint is not subsequently amended to reflect the substitution, the order of substitution was sufficient to confer the status of party Plaintiff. See Van Tran v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2020 Fla. App. LEXIS 11323 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug 12, 2020).
In Van Tran, OneWest Bank, FSB initiated a foreclosure action against Van Tran in 2009; Van Tran did not file a responsive pleading and default was entered against him. Thereafter, OneWest filed a motion to substitute Deutsche Bank as party plaintiff in the action. The circuit court granted the motion; however, no amended complaint reflecting was filed. Van Tran moved to vacate the judgment seven years later, asserting that judgment was void due to Plaintiff's failure to amend.
The Court reasoned that while the complaint was not formally amended to reflect the substitution, the substitution order and final judgment, served on all parties conferred the status of party plaintiff on Deutsche Bank.
