Opinion ID: 1891378
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was Thorp a properly joined party in this action?

Text: Joinder of defendants is governed by rule 24(a), R.C.P.: Any number of defendants may be joined in one action which asserts against them, jointly, severally or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, when any question of law or fact common to all of them is presented or involved. Although Mauer's petition in this case alleged the Thorp mortgage and April 16, 1973 foreclosure, the prayer asks for no relief as against Thorp. In a technical sense, therefore, the action cannot be said to assert against them [the defendants], jointly, severally or in the alternative, any right to relief   . Rule 24(a), supra. On the other hand we have described rule 24(a) as a broad rule. Wheeler v. Waller, 197 N.W.2d 585, 589 (Iowa 1972). A liberal construction has been encouraged. 1 Vestal & Willson, Iowa Practice § 22.01(2), at 385 (1974). In Wright v. Standard Oil Co., 234 Iowa 1241, 1243, 15 N.W.2d 275, 277 (1944), we said: The general principle of equity practice is that all persons materially interested, either legally or beneficially, in the suit or proceeding, or possessing a community of interest therein, should be joined as either plaintiffs or defendants thereto, irrespective of the relative importance or degree of interest of their relationship, in order that a complete decree may be made between them. Basic title questions involving the same real estate were raised by the petition and the cross-petition. Joinder here avoided needless multiplicity of suits. See Ambrose v. Harrison Mutual Insurance Assn., 206 N.W.2d 683, 686 (Iowa 1973). In equity a court may determine and decree as to the rights of the parties regardless of their positions as plaintiffs or defendants, and in a proper case may adjust rights and award relief as between co-plaintiffs and co-defendants. Holi-Rest, Inc. v. Treloar, 217 N.W.2d 517, 523 (Iowa 1974). Overruling Ryans' motions to drop Thorp as a party defendant and strike the cross-petition, trial court logically observed the cross-petition raised matters which were proper subjects of joinder by way of petition of intervention, and that the cross-petition was filed before the motion to drop party. Thorp's cross-petition could have been filed as a separate action and consolidated with this case for trial, or filed in this case as a petition of intervention. See rule 75, R.C.P. The result in each event would be the same. Ryans do not reveal how they were prejudiced by trial court's ruling on these motions. We are not persuaded to reverse now and further prolong this lengthy litigation on the basis of what at most could be classified only as a technical procedural irregularity. See Stearns v. Stearns, 187 N.W.2d 733, 734 (1971).