Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2017 (2026)

Parties plaintiff and defendant - Capacity

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PARTIES PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT; CAPACITY A. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST. Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. An executor, administrator, guardian, bailee, trustee of an express trust, a party with whom or in whose name a contract has been made for the benefit of another, or a party authorized by statute may sue in his own name without joining with him the party for whose benefit the action is brought. No action shall be dismissed on the ground that it is not prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest until a reasonable time has been allowed after objection for ratification of commencement of the action by, or joinder or substitution of, the real party in interest; and such ratification, joinder, or substitution shall have the same effect as if the action had been commenced in the name of the real party in interest. B. CAPACITY TO SUE OR BE SUED. Except as otherwise provided by law, any person, corporation, partnership, or unincorporated association shall have capacity to sue or be sued in this state. C. INFANTS OR INCOMPETENT PERSONS. Whenever an infant or incompetent person has a representative, such as a general guardian, committee, conservator, or other like fiduciary, the representative may sue or defend on behalf of the infant or incompetent person. If an infant or incompetent person does not have a duly appointed representative he may sue by his next friend or by a guardian ad litem. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for an infant or incompetent person not otherwise represented in an action or shall make such other order as it deems proper for the protection of the infant or incompetent person. D. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBROGATION OF CLAIMS. The assignment of claims not arising out of contract is prohibited. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the law in this state as relates to the transfer of claims through subrogation. Added by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 17, eff. Nov. 1, 1984.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 55 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: Cary by & Through Cary v. Oneok, Inc., 1997 OK 60 (Okla. 1997).
Cary by & Through Cary v. Oneok, Inc., 1997 OK 60 (Okla. 1997). · cites it 10× “12 O.S.1991 § 2017(A). Title 10 O.S.1991 § 17.”
Johnson v. Csaa Gen. Ins. Co., 2020 OK 110 (Okla. 2020). · cites it 3× “¶31 Insurer argues as part of its dismissal request: (1) 12 O.S. § 2017 states assignment of claims not arising out of contract is prohibited; (2) A "bad faith" clam against an insurer is a tort; and (3) Johnson's bad faith claim may not be assigned or split because of § 2017…”
Boston Avenue Mgmt., Inc. v. Associated Resources, Inc., 2007 OK 5 (Okla. 2007). · cites it 2× “However, obviously in an attempt to comply with 12 O.S.2001, § 2017 (A), the dismissal was entered without prejudice to the right of Office Design to intervene to assert any causes of action previously asserted by Boston.”
Weeks v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 895 P.2d 731 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “In a normal civil action, without specific statutory procedures, substitution of a plaintiff by the real party in interest is governed by 12 O.S.1991 § 2017, which provides that “[e]very action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.”
Rose Grp., L.L.C. v. Miller, 64 P.3d 573 (Okla. Civ. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Debtor moved to dismiss the petition on the ground Assignee’s claims did not arise out of contract and therefore were not assignable pursuant to 12 O.S.1991 § 2017(D). 1 The trial court granted the motion to dismiss and Assignee seeks review of that order.”
Gens v. Casady Sch., 2008 OK 5 (Okla. 2008). “Title 12 O.S.2001 § 2017 providing in pertinent part: ".”
Roth v. Mercy Health Ctr., Inc., 2011 OK 2 (Okla. 2011). · cites it 2× “" Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2017 (A)(2001). {21 The trial court abused its discretion when it denied Plaintiffs initial motion to amend by considering form over substance.”
Vance v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 1999 OK 73 (Okla. 1999). “This does not mean that a mentally disabled person will not receive the court's protection as 12 O.S.1991 § 2017 C allows for the appointment where appropriate of a guardian ad litem for the protection of a litigant’s rights and interests.”
Bank of Am., NA v. Kabba, 2012 OK 23 (Okla. 2012). “12 O.S.2012 § 2017. As such, I would affirm the trial court.”
Gomes v. Hameed, 2008 OK 3 (Okla. 2008). “Whenever an infant or incompetent person has a representative, such as a general guardian, committee, conservator, or other like fiduciary, the representative may sue or defend on behalf of the infant or incompetent person. If an infant or incompetent person does not have a duly…”
N.C. Corff P'ship, Ltd. v. OXY USA, Inc., 929 P.2d 288 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996). “While it is true that 12 O.S.1991 § 2017, permits partnerships to sue and be sued in their own name, there is nothing in section 2017, or any other statutory provision, that specifically abrogates the right of general partners to bring an action in the name of, and on behalf of,…”
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Matthews, 273 P.3d 43 (Okla. 2012). “12 O.S.2012 § 2017. As such, I would affirm the trial court.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2017(A) — 9 cases
Cary by & Through Cary v. Oneok, Inc., 1997 OK 60 (Okla. 1997). “12 O.S.1991 § 2017(A). Title 10 O.S.1991 § 17.”
Sharp v. 251st Street Landfill, Inc., 810 P.2d 1270 (Okla. 1991).
Kohler v. Kline & Kline, Inc., 38 P.3d 257 (Okla. Civ. App. 2001).
Wittenberg v. Fid. Bank, N.A., 844 P.2d 155 (Okla. 1992).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2017(B) — 1 case
Stone v. Est. of Sigman, 970 P.2d 1185 (Okla. Civ. App. 1998).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2017(C) — 4 cases
Cary by & Through Cary v. Oneok, Inc., 1997 OK 60 (Okla. 1997). “12 O.S.1991 § 2017(A). Title 10 O.S.1991 § 17.”
Watson v. Watson, 135 P.3d 853 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006).
Allstate Ins. v. Brown, 920 F.2d 664 (10th Cir. 1990).
In Re Teb, 2001 OK CIV APP 70 (Okla. Civ. App. 2001).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2017(D) — 6 cases
Johnson v. Csaa Gen. Ins. Co., 2020 OK 110 (Okla. 2020). “¶31 Insurer argues as part of its dismissal request: (1) 12 O.S. § 2017 states assignment of claims not arising out of contract is prohibited; (2) A "bad faith" clam against an insurer is a tort; and (3) Johnson's bad faith claim may not be assigned or split because of § 2017…”
Rose Grp., L.L.C. v. Miller, 64 P.3d 573 (Okla. Civ. App. 2003). “Debtor moved to dismiss the petition on the ground Assignee’s claims did not arise out of contract and therefore were not assignable pursuant to 12 O.S.1991 § 2017(D). 1 The trial court granted the motion to dismiss and Assignee seeks review of that order.”
Chimney Rock Ltd. P'ship v. Hongkong Bank of Canada, 857 P.2d 84 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993).
First Pryority Bank v. Moon, 2014 OK CIV APP 21 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.