Motion for Joinder (of Necessary Parties) in Vermont

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

“While most parties are specified by statute, the court does have the power to add others who are proper or necessary parties.” (See In re M.C.P (1989) 153 Vt. 275, 303.)

“Our rule regarding necessary joinder is substantially identical to the federal rule and provides as follows: a person who is subject to service of process shall 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
1. as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect that interest or
2. leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the person's claimed interest. If the person has not been so joined, the court shall order that the person be made a party.”

(See Daiello v. Town of Vernon (2018) 184 A.3d 1192, 1201.)

“The first stated basis for necessary joinder is designed to protect those who already are parties by requiring the presence of all persons who have an interest in the litigation so that any relief that may be awarded will effectively and completely adjudicate the dispute." (See id.)

“In evaluating this factor, courts have also considered whether joinder will avoid multiple actions and potentially inconsistent verdicts." (See id.)

“The second basis for necessary joinder comes into play when a person's absence may prejudice either that person or those already before the court.” (See id.)

“Joinder is required if the action might detrimentally affect a party's or the absentee's ability to protect his property or to prosecute or defend any subsequent litigation in which the absentee might become involved." (See id.)

Permissive Joinder

"The permissive joinder rule is procedural in nature, and is designed to remove the common law obstacles to joinder, without affecting the substantive rights of the parties.” (See John v. Fernandez (1964) 124 Vt. 346, 348.)

“The rule is also intended to promote trial convenience, prevent a multiplicity of suits, and expedite the final determination of litigation by inclusion in one suit of all parties directly interested in the controversy despite technical objections previously existing in many situations.” (See id.)

“The rule should therefore be liberally construed and applied in practice when consistent with convenience in the disposition of actions." (See id.)

Joinder under Rule 19

“Rule 19, regarding joinder of parties, is modeled after Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19.” (See Grassy Brook Vill., Inc. v. Richard D. Blazej, Inc. (1981) 140 Vt. 477, 481; Nowakowski v. City of Rutland, SUPREME COURT No. 2019-174, at *1 (Vt. Nov. 14, 2019).)

“The threshold question for joinder under Rule 19 is whether intervenor qualifies as a party that should be joined if feasible." (See id.)

“Rule 19 lists the criteria for determining if someone should be joined in an action, including whether the claims of the parties, the factual circumstances of the case, and the appropriate legal authorities create a reasonable potential for inadequate or conflicting judgments." (See id.)

“The party seeking joinder bears the burden of advancing a cogent argument on why the absent party is needed to prevent inconsistent or inadequate judgments." (See id.)

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

“The granting or denial of a motion to bring in additional parties, or to drop a party to the action, is not a matter of right, but rather one of discretion, and the order may not be disturbed unless abuse of discretion is shown." (See Curacao Trading Co. v. Federal Ins (1943) 137 F.2d 911; John v. Fernandez (1964) 124 Vt. 346, 348.)

“A wide discretion is vested in a trial court relative to joinder of parties.” (See Meyercheck v. Givens (1950) 180 F.2d 221; John v. Fernandez (1964) 124 Vt. 346, 348.)

“As stated in Grow v. Wolcott,123 Vt. 490, 492, 194 A.2d 403, an appellate court, in reviewing a ruling properly made as a matter of discretion, must affirm the decision of the trial court, if the action that the court took was one of the discretionary courses open to it." (See John v. Fernandez (1964) 124 Vt. 346, 348-49.)

“The recognized test in this state of abuse of discretion is whether the discretion of the trial court was exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable, or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” (See id; Stone v. Briggs (1942) 112 Vt. 410, 415, 26 A.2d 828, 831.)

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

It is well settled that “upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action . . . when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and he is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.” (See In re Vermont Public Power Supply Auth (1981) 140 Vt. 424, 430.)

It is also well settled that “nonjoinder and misjoinder of parties are not grounds for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added at any stage of the action by the court on motion of any party or of the court's initiative upon such terms as are just. Any claim against a party may be severed and pursued separately.” (See John v. Fernandez (1964) 124 Vt. 346, 347.)