This brief discusses the "real party in interest" concept under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 in the context of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding, and the issues of constitution and prudential standing under federal law. In this particular case, it is alleged that the plaintiff (a title company) who filed the adversary action against the individual Chapter 7 debtors is not the true party in interest, or holder of the claim because of a subrogation relationship with Lloyds of London and thus lacks the requisite legal standing to have filed the case in the first place. Under Rule 17(a), the Court has the discretion to substitute the proper party plaintiff if the failure to bring suit in the name of the real party in interest is due to an understandable mistake, or where the identify of the real party in interest was difficult to determine. The issue becomes significant where, as in this case, the applicable statute of limitations on the cause of action has expired. If the Court determines that the party asserting standing has met its burden under Rule 17(a), the Court can substitute the real party in interest as the proper plaintiff and the substitution will relate back to the date of the original court filing thus avoiding the statute of limitations as a bar to the lawsuit.