Motion for Joinder (of Necessary Parties) in Illinois

Purpose and Significance of a Motion for Joinder

“[I]t is well established that if a complete determination of a controversy cannot be had without the presence of a party, or if a person, not a party, has a property interest which a judgment may affect, the court on application shall direct him to be made a party.” (Tsuetaki v. Novicky (1983) 158 Ill. App. 3d 505, 513-14 [internal citations omitted].)

“This is required by fundamental principles of due process, since a court is without jurisdiction to enter a decree or judgment which affects a right or interest of someone not before that court.” (Id.)

“The requirement of joinder of necessary parties is absolute and inflexible, and therefore an appellate court has a duty to enforce the principle of law requiring the joinder of parties sua sponte as soon as it is brought to its attention.” (Id.)

Factors Considered by the Court in Granting or Denying a Motion for Joinder

Joinder of Plaintiffs

Section 2-404 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that:

“[a]ll persons may join in one action as plaintiffs, in whom any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative, whenever if those persons had brought separate actions any common question of law or fact would arise.”

(See, Madison Two Associates v. Pappas (2008) 884 N.E.2d 142, 147 quoting 735 ILCS 5/2-404 [West 2002].)

Joinder of Defendants

“The Code of Civil Procedure provides that any person may be made a defendant who is alleged to have a claim or interest in the controversy or transaction out of which the controversy arose, or whom it is necessary to join for the complete determination of any question involved in the case, or against whom liability is asserted arising out of the same transaction.”

(Cook v. AAA Life Ins. Co. (2014) 13 N.E.3d 20, 34 citing 735 ILCS 5/2–405(a) [West 2010].)

“In assessing whether joinder is proper, a court considers whether the claims arise out of closely related transactions and whether there is in the case a significant question of law or fact that is common to the parties.” (Cook, supra, 13 N.E.3d at 34 citing Boyd v. Travelers Insurance Co. (1995)166 Ill.2d 188, 199.)

“A necessary or indispensable party is one whose presence in the suit is required for any of three reasons:

1. to protect an interest which the absentee has in the subject matter of the controversy which would be materially affected by a judgment entered in his absence;
2. to reach a decision which will protect the interests of those who are before the court; or
3. to enable the court to make a complete determination of the controversy.”

(Carrao v. Health Care Service Corp. (1983) 118 Ill. App. 3d 417, 430-31 [internal citations omitted].)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof for a Motion for Joinder

“The standard of review of a trial court's refusal to require joinder of a party is whether the trial court abused its discretion.” (Carrao v. Health Care Service Corp. (1983) 118 Ill. App. 3d 417, 430-31 citing Lain v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. (1979) 79 Ill. App.3d 264, 267.)

“[U]nder section 2-407 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) 735 ILCS 5/2-407 [West 2000] new parties may be added and parties misjoined in an action may be dropped by order of the court at any stage as the ends of justice require.” (Bhi Corp. v. Litgen Concrete Cutting & Coring Co. (2004) 346 Ill. App. 3d 300, 305 citing Lerner v. Zipperman (1979) 69 Ill. App. 3d 620, 625 [it is the duty of the appellate court to require joinder of necessary parties sua sponte, even if no litigant has objected]; Midwest Bank Trust Co. v. Village of Lakewood (1983) 113 Ill. App. 3d 962, 973 [the proper remedy for joinder problems is for the court to order the addition of a missing party].)

Recent Cases and Precedents Influencing Motion for Joinder Decisions

“The terms ‘necessary party’ and ‘indispensable party’ are frequently used interchangeably.” (Safeco Insurance Co. v. Treinis (1992) 238 Ill. App. 3d 541, 545 citing Safeco Insurance Co. v. Treinis (1992) 238 Ill. App. 3d 541, 545 citing, e.g., City of Evanston v. Regional Transportation Authority (1991) 209 Ill. App.3d 447, 454.) “The United States Supreme Court in Shields v. Barrow (1855) 58 U.S. (17 How.) 130, 15 L.Ed. 158 distinguished between necessary and indispensable parties. Necessary parties were those required in order for the court to determine the entire controversy and to do complete justice, but whose interests were separable from those joined as parties so that the court could resolve the controversy between the parties without affecting their interests. Consequently, while necessary parties should be joined, their joinder may be excused where it is not feasible to join them. Indispensable parties were defined as those persons who have such an interest in the controversy that a final decree could not be made without either affecting that interest or leaving the controversy in a condition that any determination would be inconsistent with equity and good conscience. If an indispensable party could not be joined, the court was required to dismiss the case.” (Safeco Insurance Co. v. Treinis (1992) 238 Ill. App. 3d 541, 545.)

“Section 2-614 is to be liberally construed. (Stykel v. the City of Freeport (2001) 318 Ill. App. 3d 839, 843 citing Hagen v. Stone (1995) 277 Ill. App.3d 388, 392.) “The objective of joinder is to promote the economy of actions and trial convenience.” (Stykel, id., citing Boyd v. Travelers Insurance Co. (1995) 166 Ill.2d 188, 199.)