Chapter 19 Joinder of Persons Needed for a Just Adjudication

• Library: South Carolina Civil Procedure (SCBar) (2020 Ed.)

Chapter 19 Joinder of Persons Needed for a Just Adjudication Rule 19¹

(a) Persons to Be Joined if Feasible. A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest. If he has not been so joined, the court shall order that he be made a party. If he should join as a plaintiff but refuses to do so, he may be made a defendant, or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff.

Note:

This Rule 19(a) is the same as the Federal Rule. The principle behind this Rule is that whenever possible persons materially interested in the action should be joined so that they may be heard and a complete determination had. When this joinder is not possible, the case should be examined pragmatically and a choice made between proceeding without the particular interested party or dismissing the action. Dean Lightsey, in Code Pleading, notes that the number of cases in which there is truly an "indispensable party" in whose absence the court should not proceed are very rare. Id. at 109-110. The Rule provides for joining such a party as a defendant or involuntary plaintiff similar to Code § 15-5-40. Case law interpreting the Federal Rule makes it clear that the absence of a party does not automatically deprive the court of jurisdiction to resolve the interests of the parties before it. This changes some older state precedents which have held that such defects were jurisdictional. See Green v. Niver, 43 S.C. 359, 21 S.E. 263 (1894); Gooch v. Elliott, 120 S.C. 245, 113 S.E. 72 (1922).

(b) Determination by Court Whenever Joinder Not Feasible. If a person as described in subdivision (a)(1)-(2) hereof cannot be made a party, the court shall determine whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be dismissed, the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable. The factors to be considered by the court include: first, to what extent a judgment rendered in the person's absence might be prejudicial to him or those already parties; second, the extent to which, by protective provision in the judgment, by the shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice can be lessened or avoided; third, whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence will be adequate; fourth, whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder.

Note:

When a party described in Rule 19(a) cannot be joined, the court must decide whether to proceed with the case in that party's absence. This Rule 19(b) provides the practical factors for the court to consider in reaching its determination, and are not meant to be exclusive. Only if pragmatic considerations strongly indicate that it would be preferable to dismiss the action rather than proceed with the parties before it, should the court conclude that the absent party is truly "indispensable." Under Rule 12(h) (1) the lack of an "indispensable" party in this sense can be raised as late as the trial on the merits. However, if the purpose of the motion is to protect the movant from an apparently unfavorable situation, rather than to protect the absent party, the court may properly consider delay in making the motion as a reason against dismissing the action.

(c) Pleading Reasons for Nonjoinder. Any pleading asserting a cause of action for relief shall state the names, if known to the pleader, of any persons described in subdivision (a)(1)-(2) hereof who are not joined, and the reasons why they are not joined.

(d) Exception of Class Actions. This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 23 in class actions.

Note:

This Rule 19(c) is substantially the same as the Federal Rule. Rule 19(d) simply refers to Rule 23 for joinders in class actions.

A. Introduction

Rule 19(a) identifies the parties who should be before the court if possible, and Rule 19(b) defines those who must be parties to enable the court to proceed. It does not use the terms "indispensable" or "necessary" or describe them by the legal interests represented, such as "joint," "united," or "separable." These definitions proved ambiguous and difficult to apply; they also produced inconsistent and confusing results under Code Pleading. The rule outlines the practical factors the court reviews and emphasizes making a pragmatic judgment in light of the particular facts of the case. Shifting the analysis from an examination of the technical or legal interests to the practical effect the absent party has on the proceedings and existing parties is not intended to change long-standing authority. In general, those considered "indispensable" or "necessary" before will continue to be so under this rule.²

The Rule 19(a) tests for compulsory joinder are stricter than those under Rule 20, "Permissive Joinder of Parties." Only if these higher standards are met may the court compel joinder. General considerations of efficiency or convenience of the parties do not require joinder under Rule 19. For example, a joint tortfeasor remains a permissive party in an action.³

Rule 19(a) first directs the court to determine whether an absent person should be joined. Three factors are mentioned. Rule 19(a)(1) focuses on the plaintiff and asks whether proceeding without all interested persons will deny complete relief to those who are already parties.⁴ For instance, current titleholders to property must be joined if title is at issue.⁵ The Retirement Division may be a required party if its presence is necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiff.⁶ The defendant's successor corporation should be joined when it has a material interest in the case because it will be responsible for any judgment.⁷ However, a joint tortfeasor is not required to be joined because the existing defendant is jointly and severally liable and accords the plaintiff complete relief.⁸ Similarly, an insurer is not a party who must be joined.⁹ Moreover, a bank's agent is not necessary in a suit against a bank because complete relief can be had from the bank.¹⁰

Rule 19(a)(2)(i) asks whether the absent party's interests or his ability to protect those interests will be adversely affected "as a practical matter" by the disposition of the case. The court must view the problems pragmatically because res judicata rarely binds an absent party.¹¹ Several cases illustrate the need for the absent party. For example, title to property cannot be determined without the presence of the title holder. The state must be joined in determining title to tidal land below the high water mark.¹² The title owner must be joined before deciding a claim of adverse possession.¹³ A parent who owned a car allegedly subject to equitable division as marital property in the son's divorce also satisfied Rule 19(a).¹⁴ Interests other than property can support joinder under Rule 19. A permittee is a necessary party under Rule 19 to a proceeding to revoke a development permit.¹⁵ However, an insurance company that denied coverage because the claimant was not a spouse or resident in the house of the insured did not have a sufficient interest in the family court proceeding to be joined under Rule 19, although the determination would affect its liability to defend the claim under the policy.¹⁶ Also, a party without standing is not required to be joined under Rule 19.¹⁷

Finally, Rule 19(a)(2)(ii) asks whether existing parties will be subjected to a substantial risk of double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent litigation by reason of the absent party's interest. Thus, an action challenging conveyances by a trustee required the transferees' presence to avoid multiple litigation against the trustee.¹⁸ However, an absent party who agrees to be bound...