Court Opinion

ID: 9848027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:11:33.435344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:55.675457
License: Public Domain

Stolz, Judge,
dissenting. The majority opinion in this case overlooks Civil Practice Act § 19 (b) (Code Ann. *376§ 81A-119 (b)) covering conditionally necessary parties, wherein it is provided: "When persons who are not indispensable, but who ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded between those already parties, have not been made parties and are subject to the jurisdiction of the court, the court shall order them summoned to appear in the action. The court in its discretion may proceed in the action without making such persons parties, if its jurisdiction over them can be acquired only by their consent or voluntary appearance; but the judgment rendered therein does not affect the rights or liabilities of absent persons.”
The record discloses that L. C. Robinson & Sons, Inc. is an Alabama corporation with its principal office and place of business in Troup County, Georgia, and that G. E. Robinson is a resident of Troup County, Georgia. Thus, both are subject to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Troup County and are "conditionally necessary parties” if "complete relief is to be accorded between those already parties” under CPA § 19 (b) (Code Ann. § 81A-119 (b)).
The Civil Practice Act also provides that parties defendant also may be joined in one action "if there is asserted 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, and if any question of law or fact common to all of them will arise in the action. A plaintiff or defendant need not be interested in obtaining or defending against all the relief demanded. Judgment may be given . . . against one or more defendants according to their respective liabilities.” CPA §20 (a) (Code Ann. § 81A-120 (a)).
The majority opinion succinctly sets forth the contentions of the plaintiff and the defendant. I would but mention that the plaintiff has yet to bring an action on its allegedly past due note, to say nothing of reducing it to judgment and attempting to collect it through levy. The defendant and the debtors deny that the debtors are insolvent. If the debtors are solvent and the debt collectible, how could the *377defendant bank have defrauded the plaintiff? If the debtors are insolvent, why go through two trials to resolve these issues? The debtors are subject to the jurisdiction of the court and are willing to be joined as parties to the action. The trial court found that "they (debtors) are necessary parties if complete relief is to be accorded between those already parties.” Thus, the requirements of CPA § 19 (b) (Code Ann. § 81A-119 (b)) are squarely met.
The provisions of the Civil Practice Act are to be construed "to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” CPA § 1 (Code Ann. § 81A-101).
Even if L. C. Robinson & Sons, Inc., and G. E. Robinfon are not essential parties (CPA § 19 (a); Code Ann. § 81A-119 (a)) they occupy at least the status of persons who ought to be parties "if complete relief is to be accorded between those already parties” and whom, if "subject to the jurisdiction of the court,” the court has the authority to order to appear in the action (conditionally necessary parties). Further, "parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action on such terms as are just.” CPA § 21 (Code Ann. § 81A-121). See also CPA § 22 (Code Ann. § 81A-122); Leon Investment Co. v. Independent Life &c. Ins. Co., 123 Ga. App. 668 (182 SE2d 151). There is nothing in the record to suggest that it would be unjust or unfair to permit the joinder of L. C. Robinson & Sons, Inc., and G. E. Robinson as parties defendant in this case.
The opinion of the majority is an invasion of the discretion given the trial court under the Civil Practice Act. If the trial court is not to be permitted to exercise its discretion to add these parties as defendants in this case, when can it possibly be permitted to do so? This case presents the classic example of the opportunity afforded by the Civil Practice Act to bring all parties at interest before the court and resolve all issues in one case and thus avoid a multiplicity of suits. The net effect of the majority decision for all intents and purposes, is to disembowel the joinder provi*378sions of the Civil Practice Act and make them utterly meaningless. I must respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Chief Judge Bell and Judges Quillian and Clark concur in this dissent.