Opinion ID: 2290920
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Owner's Joinder Was Desirable.

Text: Rule 19(a) describes several reasons why an absent person's joinder might be desirable for a just adjudication. The trial judge relied on clause 19(a)(1), which states that a person ... shall be joined as a party in the action if ... in the person's absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties.... This clause is designed to protect those who already are parties by requiring the presence of all persons who have an interest in the litigation so that any relief that may be awarded will effectively and completely adjudicate the dispute. 7 WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, supra, § 1604 at 42. Joinder under this provision is thus designed to protect those already parties from the possibility of multiple suits concerning the same dispute. In the absence of any specification by appellees as to the nature of their likely claim against the owner if appellant prevailed in his lawsuit, the owner was in the position of a stakeholder. Cf. Habib v. Miller, 284 A.2d 56, 57 (D.C.1971) (settlement agent testified that the firm would pay the money to whomever the court directed). Consequently, under this view the trial judge would have erred in finding that the owner was a party whose presence was needed for a just adjudication. On the other hand, we are unable to conclude that the trial judge abused his discretion in concluding that the declaratory judgment sought by appellant would impose on appellees the possibility of multiple litigation with the absent owner. Appellant sought a declaration that he was entitled to purchase the two disputed units to which the owner still held title. Two of the appellees, however, have contracts of sale with the owner concerning the same two units. Thus, the judge could reasonably conclude that if appellant prevailed in the declaratory judgment action, litigation might ensue between the owner and appellees Fisch and Stivelband. So viewed, we would find no error in the judge's ruling that the owner's presence was desirable in order to protect appellees' interest in avoiding multiple litigation, and to further the public interest in the avoidance of inconsistent verdicts and multiple actions. 7 WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, supra, § 1604 at 48.