Opinion ID: 2604317
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Members' Spouses

Text: The trial court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the class membership should include employees' spouses because the spouses owned an interest in the vehicles damaged by the acid rain. The court found that the basis for this joinder, i.e., ownership of an interest in the vehicle, opens the class to a number of persons and/or parties, including financial institutions, insurance companies, etc., whose participation in the class action is unnecessary, unmanageable, and inappropriate. The standard of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Connolly v. Frobenius, 2 Kan. App.2d 18, Syl. ¶ 3, 574 P.2d 971, rev. denied 225 Kan. 843 (1978) (The trial judge must be afforded substantial discretion in the decision-making process as to the maintenance of a class action.); Steele v. Security Benefit Life Ins. Co., 226 Kan. 631, 638, 602 P.2d 1305 (1979). Judicial discretion is abused when judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. In re Marriage of Soden, 251 Kan. 225, Syl. ¶ 9, 834 P.2d 358 (1992). The plaintiffs disagree with the trial court's rationale that joinder of spouses would open the class to financial institutions, insurance companies, etc. The plaintiffs contend such parties' interest in the vehicle would be triggered only upon some condition precedent, such as default, loss, payment, or subrogation. The plaintiffs maintain that joinder of spouses is necessary to avoid duplication of lawsuits and directs this court's attention to federal cases in which spouses were allowed to join the class of members. KCPL responds that other federal cases have denied class membership to spouses. The defendant asserts the fact [t]hat other courts in other cases presenting different facts and different claims reached a different decision does not render the trial court's decision an abuse of discretion. KCPL also points out that the plaintiffs attempted to join all spouses, regardless of whether the individual spouse had an ownership interest in the employee vehicle. The defendant contends that each plaintiff adequately protects his or her membership in the class and can assert the interest of the joint tenant, if there is one. The trial court's decision was not arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. Furthermore, we cannot say no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and this court will not disturb the trial court's ruling on appeal. Affirmed.