Court Opinion

ID: 9527850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:34:55.662028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:14.996947
License: Public Domain

HALL, Chief Justice:
This case arises out of a controversy over the disposition of various bank deposits made by plaintiff’s deceased husband. Defendant seeks reversal of a district court judgment awarding plaintiff $4,924.66 and awarding over $43,623.43 to a nonparty.
Plaintiff Ruth S. Hiltsley is the surviving wife of Milton J. Hiltsley (decedent). Decedent died on August 26, 1981, and on October 7, 1981, plaintiff was appointed the personal representative of decedent’s estate. Thereafter, she initiated this action in her representative capacity and on her own behalf, alleging alienation of affections and diversion of assets based upon fraud and undue influence. Specifically, she claimed an interest in the proceeds of a money market account, a passbook account used to purchase a condominium, and funds held in the form of two money market certificates. These assets had been held by defendant and decedent as joint tenants *1025with right of survivorship and claimed by defendant upon decedent’s death.
Decedent’s private journal, which was introduced without objection at trial, disclosed that on September 10, 1979, decedent’s bedridden sister, Etta Wood, moved to Salt Lake City, Utah, from Albuquerque, New Mexico. According to the journal, decedent brought Etta’s belongings to Salt Lake City on October 20 or 21, 1979, and Etta died on January 20, 1980. The journal also contained a notation to the effect that on October 5, 1979, decedent obtained in excess of $80,000 from Etta’s New Mexico bank account. As indicated below, this latter notation is the cornerstone of the trial court’s judgment.
The court found that plaintiff failed to produce significant evidence of the alienation of her husband’s affections and that the evidence was insufficient to prove her allegations of fraud or willful or malicious conduct by defendant. The trial court, however, determined, “Decedent must be considered as having received the $30,000 from Etta Wood in trust for her and this money was not his money to invest as he did and did not become his upon her death to give away or use for his own purposes.”
The trial court then proceeded to trace the source of the disputed assets to determine who had claim to such assets and what had happened to the $30,000. Thereafter it rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff and Etta Wood in the amounts indicated above.
Defendants contends that the trial court erred by declaring a constructive trust in favor of Etta Wood’s estate on the proceeds of the $30,000 received by decedent from Etta Wood’s New Mexico bank account. Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c)(1) provides in pertinent part:
[Ejvery final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings. It may be given for or against one or more of several claimants; and it may, when the justice of the case requires it, determine the ultimate rights of the parties on each side as between or among themselves.1
This rule is consistent with the general principle that a trial court may not render judgment in favor of a nonparty. Courts can generally make a legally binding adjudication only between the parties actually joined in the action.2 The record fails to indicate that the estate of Etta Wood was a party to this lawsuit below. In accordance with the above principles, we hold that the trial court erred by rendering judgment in favor of the estate of Etta Wood.
While the record indicates that neither party raised any objection to the non-join-der of Etta Wood’s estate, it is well settled that appellate courts may raise the issue sua sponte.3 Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 19 provides in pertinent part:
(a) Persons to be joined if feasible. A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of action 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 *1026joined, 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, or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff... ,4
Because the trial court should have required that Etta Wood’s estate be joined before deciding the case as it did, we reverse the case and remand for joinder of Etta Wood’s estate.5 No costs awarded.
STEWART, Associate C.J., and HOWE and DURHAM, JJ., concur.

. Rule 54(c)(1), while permitting relief not pleaded does not permit relief on issues neither raised nor tried, as was the case here with respect to the constructive trust issue. See Combe v. Warren’s Family Drive-Inns, Inc., 680 P.2d 733, 735 (Utah 1984).

. See Utah R.Civ.P. 19(b); cf. R.M.S. Corp. v. Baldwin, 576 P.2d 881, 883 (Utah 1978) ("[N]o judgment could have been so entered for the reason that the corporation was not before the court.”).

. See, e.g., Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102, 111, 88 S.Ct. 733, 738, 19 L.Ed.2d 936 (1968); Kimball v. Florida Bar, 537 F.2d 1305, 1307 (5th Cir.1976).

. Although Rule 19 was amended after this case was argued, the amendments do not affect the operation of the rule.

. In making this disposition, we in no way rule upon the merits of the constructive trust issue. To do so would be improper since the record was developed without representation by Etta Wood’s estate. However, for the benefit of the trial court, we refer it to Ashton v. Ashton, 733 P.2d 147, 151-52 (Utah 1987), and Baker v. Pattee, 684 P.2d 632, 636-37 (Utah 1984).