Motion for Joinder (of Necessary Parties) in Michigan

Background

“The reason for such joinder of necessary parties is well known. ‘It is a general rule in equity that all parties entitled to litigate the same questions are necessary parties.’” (Yedinak v. Yedinak (1970) 383 Mich. 409, 426.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

MCR 2.205(A) provides for the joinder of necessary parties:

[P]ersons having such interests in the subject matter of an action that their presence in the action is essential to permit the court to render complete relief must be made parties and aligned as plaintiffs or defendants in accordance with their respective interests.

(See, Gordon v. Grand Rapids Material (1989) 183 Mich. App. 241, 243 citing MCR 2.205(A).)

Joinder vs. Real Party in Interest

“[T]he real party in interest rule is concerned only with the power of the plaintiff who is before the court. It is the defendant's duty to join necessary parties under MCR 2.205.” (Rite-Way Refuse v. Vanderploeg (1987) 161 Mich. App. 274, 281.)

“Generally courts will be liberal in allowing the joinder of third party defendants, but it should be avoided where there might be prejudice to either party because of the complexity of the case. It should be remembered, however, that if there is objection on this basis, the court can always order separate trials of separate issues under GCR 1963, 505.2.” (Caldwell v. Fox (1975) 394 Mich. 401, 415.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“[A] trial court's decision regarding joinder is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” (See P.T. Today, Inc. v. Comm'r of the Office of Fin. & Ins. Servs. (2006) 270 Mich.App. 110, 136.)

The Court’s Decision

Importantly, “[b]ecause joinder is mandatory under MCR 2.205(A), rather than permissive, joinder is required for the benefit of the defendant and thereby places on the defendant the burden of objecting to misjoinder.... Thus, the defendant must make a timely assertion of the position that separate suits violate the rule prohibiting the splitting of actions, modernly known as the joinder rule.” (United Services v. Nothelfer (1992) 195 Mich. App. 87, 89-90 citing Chunko v. LeMaitre (1968) 10 Mich. App. 490, 496.)

“If the defendant fails to make such a timely assertion, he waives his right to make such a claim; in effect, the defendant ‘acquiesces in splitting causes of action by not raising timely objection.’” (Id.)

Permissive Joinder

“Permissive joinder [is] allowed in order to ‘promote the convenient administration of justice — i.e., where no prejudice to any party would result.’ (Tempco Heating & Cooling, Inc. v. A Rea Construction, Inc. (1989) 178 Mich. App. 181, 188-89 citing GCR 1963 206.1(2); Gervais v. Annapolis Homes, Inc. (1966) 377 Mich. 674, 679.) “No prejudice to any party was demonstrated in this case. The trial court did not abuse its discretion.” (Id. at 680.)