Opinion ID: 1203264
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the county was properly designated as a defendant.

Text: Cluff asserts that the trial court should not have allowed the County to appear as a defendant but should have required the County to intervene pursuant to I.R.C.P. 24(a) or (b). We disagree. Cluff named as defendants in his quiet title action not only Maring and Maring's heirs, successors, and assigns, but also all unknown claimants, their heirs, successors and assigns. This designation of unknown claimants is authorized by I.R.C.P. 10(a)(5) and 17(d). The County alleged that its ownership of Lot 6 is evidenced by the corrected tax deed. The County's claim of ownership under the corrected tax deed gave the County sufficient status to appear as a defendant in the action.