Court Opinion

ID: 9514062
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:43:59.321925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:11.021973
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 23] I agree with the majority opinion’s discussion of the effect of the lis pendens on the transactions of the parties to this lawsuit. However, I am less clear that the same holding applies between the filer of the lis pendens, in this case Continental Resources, and the parties when the filer has dealt with both parties to the transactions.
[¶ 24] Rule 19, N.D.R.CivJP., provides for joinder of persons needed for a just adjudication. Under subsection (a)(1), a party must be joined if “in the person’s absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties.” Here it was Continental Resources that dealt with Burlington Resources and with Bragg and Gleason. It seems to me Continental should have been joined as a party in order to grant “complete relief’ to Burlington Resources and Bragg and Gleason. Neither party raised the issue of joinder in either the trial court or this Court. Although at oral argument, in response to the question of why Continental Resources was not a party, Burlington Resources told us there was an indemnity agreement in effect, that agreement as well as the lis pendens are not part of the record before us. But, on appeal, this Court may consider questions about joinder of an absent party even though it was not raised in the trial court. Stonewood Hotel Corp., Inc. v. Davis Development, Inc., 447 N.W.2d 286 (N.D.1989). However, we have also held that the decision to not name a party can reasonably be interpreted as an election to forego that right under Rule 19. Wayne-Juntunen Fertilizer Co. v. Lassonde, 456 N.W.2d 519 (N.D.1990).
[¶ 25] It may be Burlington Resources did not request that Continental be joined as a party because of an indemnity agreement that would prevent any further relief. In any event I conclude the failure to request Continental be joined as a party to the lawsuit can reasonably be interpreted as an election to forego that right under N.D.R.Civ.P. 19. I therefore concur in the majority opinion.
[¶ 26] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J.