Opinion ID: 2595511
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: United States as Necessary or Indispensable Party

Text: The Millers argue that the United States, as trustee of the lands held by Bradley, is a necessary and indispensable party to this action. Rule 19 of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure governs the joinder of persons needed for a just adjudication. In determining whether joinder is required, a court must first determine if the person in question meets the criteria contained in Rule 19(a). Lamb v. Wyoming Game and Fish Comm'n, 985 P.2d 433, 439 (Wyo.1999). Section (a) of Rule 19 provides: (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 the person's absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties; or (2) the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person's absence may: (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's 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 the claimed interest. If these criteria are met, the person is to be joined if feasible. Lamb, at 439. In cases where joinder is not feasible, the court must then determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed with the parties before it or be dismissed based upon consideration of the four factors identified in Rule 19(b). Id. We conclude that the criteria contained in Rule 19(a) have not been met. Contrary to the Millers' claim, we find that, on the narrow issue presented, complete relief can be accorded among the parties before the court without the joinder of the United States. Unlike the authorities cited by Miller, this is not a case in which title to the Bradley property is at issue. If such were the case, dismissal likely would be warranted absent the United States as a party. At issue here, however, is the trust beneficiary's right of access to the trust property. This issue can be adequately addressed, and complete relief can be afforded, in an action between the beneficiary and the landowners across whose property access is sought. Our inquiry does not end there, however. Rule 19(a) alternatively provides that joinder is required if the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and his absence may impair his ability to protect that interest or may leave a party to the action subject to a substantial risk of double, multiple or inconsistent obligations. While recognizing the United States may have an interest in the technical sense as owner of the Bradley property, we do not find as a practical matter that its interest is subject to being impaired in this action. No party is seeking to establish a private road across lands held in trust by the United States, so its interest will not be impaired in that way. Nor do we see how the establishment of a private road providing access to the federal trust land for the benefit of the beneficiary will impair or impede the government's interest. Likewise, we do not see a substantial risk that double, multiple, or inconsistent obligations may be imposed upon any of the existing parties in the absence of the United States as a party. While the Millers are correct that the outcome in this case is not binding on the United States in its absence, we must examine practical, not merely legal, effects of allowing the action to go forward. Lamb, 985 P.2d at 439. In this case, it seems highly unlikely that the United States would have reason in the future to challenge a ruling establishing access to federal trust lands across non-federal lands for the benefit of its beneficiary. Under the particular facts of this case, the United States is not a person needed for just adjudication within the meanings of W.R.C.P. 19, and the motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party was properly denied.