Which statement best describes the effect of Sec. 20, Rule 3 on money claims when the defendant dies before final judgment?

Which statement best describes the effect of Sec. 20, Rule 3 on money claims when the defendant dies before final judgment?

• A. The case is dismissed and cannot be revived.
• B. The case shall not be dismissed and may continue to entry of final judgment with substitution.
• C. The plaintiff loses the case by operation of law.
• D. The action becomes a probate matter.

Answer: (B)

When a defendant dies before final judgment, money claims are not automatically cut off. The rule allows the action to continue by substituting the proper party—typically the deceased’s executor or administrator—to represent the estate. The case can then proceed to judgment, with the estate liable for the amount due to the plaintiff, rather than dismissing the claim or letting it die with the defendant. This substitution preserves the plaintiff’s remedy against the decedent’s estate and keeps the action alive through final resolution. The other outcomes aren’t correct because they would prematurely end the suit or mischaracterize the process: dismissal would cut off the remedy, which the rule expressly avoids for money claims; the plaintiff does not automatically lose by operation of law; and the matter does not become a probate proceeding in the sense of replacing the entire case with estate administration—instead, the estate is substituted as the party to carry the claim forward.

When a defendant dies before final judgment, money claims are not automatically cut off. The rule allows the action to continue by substituting the proper party—typically the deceased’s executor or administrator—to represent the estate. The case can then proceed to judgment, with the estate liable for the amount due to the plaintiff, rather than dismissing the claim or letting it die with the defendant. This substitution preserves the plaintiff’s remedy against the decedent’s estate and keeps the action alive through final resolution.

The other outcomes aren’t correct because they would prematurely end the suit or mischaracterize the process: dismissal would cut off the remedy, which the rule expressly avoids for money claims; the plaintiff does not automatically lose by operation of law; and the matter does not become a probate proceeding in the sense of replacing the entire case with estate administration—instead, the estate is substituted as the party to carry the claim forward.