Motion for Joinder (of Necessary Parties) in Virginia

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion for Joinder (of Necessary Parties)

"Necessary parties include all persons, natural or artificial, however numerous, materially interested either legally or beneficially in the subject matter or event of the suit and who must be made parties to it, and without whose presence in court no proper decree can be rendered in the cause.” (See Jett v. DeGaetani (2000) 259 Va. 616, 619-20.)

“This rule is inflexible, yielding only when the allegations of the bill state a case so extraordinary and exceptional in character that it is practically impossible to make all parties in interest parties to the bill, and, further, that others are made parties who have the same interest as have those not brought in, and are equally certain to bring forward the entire merits of the controversy as would the absent persons.” (See id.)

“This cardinal principle governing as to parties to suits in equity is founded upon the broad and liberal doctrine that courts of equity delight to do complete justice by determining the rights of all persons interested in the subject matter of litigation, so that the performance of the decree rendered in the cause may be perfectly safe to all who are required to obey it and that further litigation touching the matter in dispute may be prevented.” (See id; Kennedy Coal Corp. v. Buckhorn Coal Corp. (1924) 140 Va. 37, 49, 124 S.E. 482, 486; The Buchanan Company v. Smith's Heirs (1914) 115 Va. 704, 707-08, 80 S.E. 794, 795.)

“‘Necessary parties’ interests in the subject matter of the suit, and in the relief sought, are so bound up with that of the other parties, that their legal presence as parties to the proceeding is an absolute necessity, without which the court cannot proceed.” (See Jett v. DeGaetani (2000) 259 Va. 616, 619-20; Bonsal v. Camp (1911) 111 Va. 595, 597-98, 69 S.E. 978, 979; Barney v. Baltimore City (1867) 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 280, 284.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion for Joinder (of Necessary Parties)

Rule 3:12 of the Virginia Court Rules governs joinder of additional parties.

The rule states, “a person who is subject to service of process may be joined as a party in the action if (1) in the person's absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person's absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's 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 the claimed interest of the person to be joined. If such a person should join as a plaintiff but refuses to do so, the person may be made a defendant, or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff.” (See Va. R. Sup. Ct. 3:12(a).)

“A motion to join an additional party may, subject to the provisions of Rule 1:9, be filed with the clerk within 21 days after service of the complaint and must be served on the party sought to be joined who is thereafter subject to all provisions of these Rules, except the provisions requiring payment of writ tax and clerk's fees.” (See Va. R. Sup. Ct. 3:12(b).)

“If a person as described in subdivision (a) hereof cannot be made a party, the court must determine whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be dismissed, the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable.” (See Va. R. Sup. Ct. 3:12(c).)

“The factors to be considered by the court include: first, to what extent a judgment rendered in the person's absence might be prejudicial to the absent person or those already parties; second, the extent to which, by protective provisions in the judgment, by the shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice can be lessened or avoided; third, whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence will be adequate; fourth, whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder.” (See id.)

“A pleading asserting a claim for relief must state the names, if known to the pleader, of any persons as described in subdivision (a) hereof who are not joined, and the reasons why they are not joined.” (See Va. R. Sup. Ct. 3:12(d).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion for Joinder (of Necessary Parties)

“A court cannot render a valid judgment when necessary parties to a suit are not before the court.” (See Jett v. DeGaetani (2000) 259 Va. 616, 619.)

“Generally, the decision whether to order joinder lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision will be overturned on appeal only for an abuse of discretion.” (See Byrd v. Commonwealth, Record No. 2550-02-1, at *1 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2003).)

“The abuse of discretion standard, if nothing else, means that the trial judge's ruling will not be reversed simply because an appellate court disagrees. Only when reasonable jurists could not differ can we say an abuse of discretion has occurred.” (See Salmons v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0473-15-3, at *4 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2016).)

As such, “a court has abused its discretion if its decision was affected by an error of law or was one with which no reasonable jurist could agree.” (See Grattan v. Commonwealth (2009) 278 Va. 602, 620, 685 S.E.2d 634; Tomlin v. Commonwealth (2022) 74 Va. App. 392, 409.)

“Although this standard is at least nominally deferential to the trial court's determination, the Virginia Supreme Court recently made clear that a trial court's determination that the specific facts of a particular case constitute a ‘common scheme’ or ‘common plan’ necessarily requires an interpretation of Rule 3A:6(b), and thus, represents a ‘question of law’ subject to de novo review.” (See Salmons v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0473-15-3, at *4 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2016).)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion for Joinder (of Necessary Parties)

It is well settled that “a person is an indispensable party where an individual is in the actual enjoyment of the subject matter, or has an interest in it, either in possession or expectancy, which is likely either to be defeated or diminished by the plaintiff's claim." (See Dover v. Walker, Record No. 0142-11-4, at *2 (Va. Ct. App. July 12, 2011); Asch v. Friends of Mount Vernon Yacht Club (1996) 251 Va. 89, 90-91, 465 S.E.2d 817, 818.)

It is also well settled that “cases interpreting the federal rules on joinder are instructive in Virginia because both the federal rules and the Virginia statute focus on prejudice as the determinative factor governing joinder.” (See Allen v. Commonwealth (2011) 58 Va. App. 618, 624 n.3.)