Thanks iknow, I never thought to look at
real party in interest
as an element of
In its broadest sense, standing is no more than having, or representing one who has,
"a sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy."[
3] Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 731, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 1364, 31 L.Ed.2d 636, 641 (1972).
Am I going crazy, or does the highlighted quote from the opinion in fact say that standing is an element of subject matter jurisdiction?
I'm not sure how it is in other states, but FL is all over the place in its opinions.
You are facing the same problem everyone faces. Bad lawyers/briefs make bad case law. It's not that their opinions are all over the place, its that someone will often use an incorrect term and the court of appeals doesn't correct it. A common example is that Conditions Precedent is an affirmative defense. With an affirmative defense the defendant has the burden of proof. Clearly, you don't have to prove the Plaintiff complied with conditions, THEY have the burden of proof, but we still see decision saying it's an affirmative defense. If you actually READ the cases, this becomes very clear that it is not an affirmative defense. As far the above quote concerning standing/subject matter jurisdiction, I don't see where it goes into subject matter jurisdiction at all. What it is saying is you need to have a dog in the fight. In order to go to court, you have to have been injured before the court can decide the issue. If the trust never had the note and cannot enforce the note, it doesn't matter if you defaulted, they don't have an interest in note (sufficient stake), and have not been injured by your default (justiciable controversy  , so if they sue you there is nothing for the court to really decide ( judicial resolution of that controversy). They lack standing to complain about he breech so there is nothing for the court to decide.
"Between two evils, I always pick the one I never tried before."