Also known as:predecessor in interest · predecessor-in-interest · predecessors-in-interest · prior owner · predecessor in title
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An earlier holder of the same legal interest or title that a current party now possesses. The concept supplies the required connection when a rule conditions an outcome on prior opportunity, motive, or priority held by that earlier holder.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
5
Deposition Testimony Against Successor
The Aurora Museum sues Vega over ownership of sculptures. In an earlier quiet title suit involving the same collection, art historian Dr. Liao gave sworn deposition testimony that Vega's predecessor extensively examined. Dr. Liao has since died. The museum offers the transcript against Vega. Because Vega's predecessor in interest had both the opportunity and a similar motive to develop the testimony, the court admits it under the former-testimony exception.
Fixture Priority Over Prior Owner
Peak Performance installs factory machines on real property it later sells to Progressive Healthcare. Before the machines became fixtures, Peak filed a financing statement perfecting its security interest. Progressive's predecessor in title recorded its mortgage after the filing. Peak's perfected interest therefore takes priority over any conflicting claim held by that predecessor.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Statutes
Federal Rules
Uniform Acts
Restatements
Casebooks
Hornbooks
Development Rights Inherited From Predecessor
Del Monte Dunes and its predecessor in interest repeatedly sought permits to develop a coastal parcel. The city denied each application. When Del Monte Dunes later sued for a taking, the court treated the predecessor's failed efforts as part of the same continuous claim, allowing the successor to assert the full regulatory history.
City of Monterrey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterrey, Ltd.526 U.S. 687, 734 (1999)
Res Judicata Binding On Successors
Homeowners who signed a restrictive covenant sued to enforce it against later purchasers. The earlier decree in Burke v. Kleiman had upheld the covenant. Because the current defendants stood in the shoes of the prior owners, who were their predecessors in interest, the court held them bound by the earlier judgment.
Hansberry v. Lee311 U.S. 32, 40 (1940)
Jurisdictional Contacts Through Predecessor
Plaintiffs sued Daimler AG in California for acts committed by its Argentine subsidiary. Daimler's predecessor in interest had maintained continuous contacts in the state. The court examined whether those earlier contacts could be attributed to Daimler as successor, ultimately concluding they could not support general jurisdiction.
Daimler AG v. Bauman571 U.S. 117, 139 n.20 (2014)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
When does a civil defendant count as a predecessor in interest for the former-testimony exception?+
A civil defendant counts as a predecessor in interest when it succeeds to the exact legal position held by an earlier party who had both the opportunity and a similar motive to examine the unavailable witness. The rule treats the successor as standing in the predecessor's shoes, so the prior examination satisfies the exception even though the current defendant was not itself a party to the earlier proceeding.
Does a change in the precise legal theory between two proceedings defeat similar motive?+
No. Similar motive exists when the factual issues and incentives to discredit the witness substantially overlap, even if the earlier proceeding involved insurance coverage and the later suit involves product liability. The rule focuses on whether the prior party had reason to probe the same core testimony, not on identical causes of action.
Can periods of adverse use by a predecessor in interest be tacked to satisfy the prescriptive period?+
Yes. Successive periods of adverse use may be combined when the current claimant received an assignment of the predecessor's interest in the disputed route or path. The written transfer creates the required privity, allowing the total duration of open and continuous use to be measured from the first adverse act through the present owner.
571 U.S. 117 (2014)Civil Procedure
…and has its headquarters in Stuttgart. At times relevant to this case, MB Argentina was a subsidiary wholly owned by Daimler’s predecessor in interest. Daimler moved to dismiss the action for want of personal jurisdiction. Opposing the motion, plaintiffs submitted declarations and exhibits purporting to demonstrate the presence of…