Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): designation of "Defendants” refers to James P. Brines and Joyce L. Brines, husband and wife, and William L. Gehrs Jr., and Betty Jo Gehrs, husband and wife. 2 . Details of the real estate transaction and descriptions of the contract documents may be found in Brines I and are only repeated here when required to understand the issues presented. 3 . Defendants sought joinder of Meekers as "parties plaintiff.” The trial court merely sustained the joinder motion without designating Meekers' status. Even so, the trial court and the parties themselves have consistently referred to Meekers as "defendants.” Because of the peculiar circumstances, however, the more appropriate designation of Meekers is "counterclaim defendants.” 4 . See e.g. Davis v. Allen, 740 S.W.2d 699, 700[3] (Mo.App.1987) (<HOLDING>); Farrell v. DeClue, 382 S.W.2d 462, 466[1] 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that when a state sues on behalf of its residents without a sovereign or quasisovereign interest it is only a nominal party and thus not the real party in interest (B) holding a judgment aggrieves a party if it directly affects some pecuniary or property interest that the party possesses (C) holding that a third party holding legal title to property is a necessary party in an action for equitable distribution (D) holding that a party does not automatically qualify as a real party in interest merely because it has been named as a defendant in a declaratory judgment action (E) holding that even assuming government was a party in interest in the delaware case and that the party in interest status was sufficient to make the delaware plan binding upon it the government did not receive adequate notice that confirmation might affect its pecuniary interest
Output (English): holding that a party does not automatically qualify as a real party in interest merely because it has been named as a defendant in a declaratory judgment action