Opinion ID: 2605208
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: failure to join indispensable parties.

Text: Appellant argues that in order to determine the degree of ownership in the Mikvyda marital asset, it was essential that the non-party, co-owners be joined. Appellant contended that an equitable division of this interest could not be made without first determining the extent of all ownership in Mikvyda, and that the absence of the other co-owners in the corporation precluded the trial court from determining the rights of the husband and wife. Rule 19, W.R.C.P., governs joinder, and provides in part: (a) Persons to be joined if feasible.  A person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his 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 his claimed interest. If he has not been so joined, the court shall order that he be made a party. If he should join as a plaintiff but refuses to do so, he may be made a defendant. If the joined party objects to venue and his joinder would render the venue of the action improper, he shall be dismissed from the action. We are not concerned with whether or not appellant's parents were proper parties to the action in order to avoid a multiplicity of suits because there was no effort by either party to bring them into the litigation. American Beryllium & Oil Corp. v. Chase, Wyo., 425 P.2d 66 (1967). Proper parties may, but need not, be joined. Still we have the question, were appellant's parents indispensable parties? We have defined an indispensable party as: `An indispensable party has been defined as one without whose presence before the court a final decree could not be made without either affecting his interest or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final determination might be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience.    Whether or not a person is an indispensable party cannot be determined by a prescribed formula because the facts peculiar to each case are determinative of that question.   ' Id. at 68. In Washington v. United States, 87 F.2d 421, 427 (9th Cir.1936), the court set out the following criteria for determining whether or not a party is indispensable:    After first determining that such party is interested in the controversy, the court must make a determination of the following questions applied to the particular case: (1) Is the interest of the absent party distinct and severable? (2) In the absence of such party, can the court render justice between the parties before it? (3) Will the decree made, in the absence of such party, have no injurious effect on the interest of such absent party? (4) Will the final determination, in the absence of such party, be consistent with equity and good conscience? If, after the court determines that an absent party is interested in the controversy, it finds that all of the four questions outlined above are answered in the affirmative with respect to the absent party's interest, then such absent party [may be a proper or] a necessary party. However, if any one of the four questions is answered in the negative, then the absent party is indispensable. See also, Photometric Products Corp. v. Radtke, 17 F.R.D. 103, 109 (D.C.N.Y. 1954); American Beryllium & Oil Corp. v. Chase, supra; Oxley v. Mine & Smelter Supply Co., Wyo., 439 P.2d 661 (1968). Some courts make a distinction between necessary and indispensable parties. Necessary parties are those who might be joined to save further litigation or to protect the interest of another party. 59 Am.Jur.2d Parties § 12. It is not error for the court to refuse to join either proper or necessary parties. Only indispensable parties must be joined. In this situation, the four questions can be answered in the affirmative. The interests of the co-owners were not adjudicated in this proceeding. There was no disposition of the property of third parties. Stock did not change hands; the ownership and the control of the corporation was not affected. The effect of this decision did not declare appellee an owner in the corporation nor did she receive a transfer of any stock. We fail to see how such a limited finding could be prejudicial to the corporation or the shareholders. Coman v. Coman, 492 F.2d 273 (3rd Cir.1974). Between the husband and wife, the trial court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the character of any property claimed to be a marital asset. Merritt v. Merritt, Wyo., 586 P.2d 550 (1978); Melny v. Melny, 90 Cal. App.2d 672, 203 P.2d 588 (1949). In situations where a third party is not indispensable, the third party may either seek to intervene or be joined by either party. Merritt v. Merritt, supra. In this case, appellant could have brought his parents, the co-owners, into the lawsuit. He could have taken affirmative action himself to negate any difficulties. He did not take this action and, therefore, can only blame himself if there are future problems. The trial court exercises discretion in dividing marital property. The result will not be disturbed on appeal except on clear grounds and extreme cases. Kane v. Kane, Wyo., 577 P.2d 172 (1978); Biggerstaff v. Biggerstaff, Wyo., 443 P.2d 524 (1968). There was no abuse of discretion in this case.