Motion for Joinder (of Necessary Parties) in Iowa

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

“[A]ll persons having a joint interest in any action should be joined as parties.” (See Noel v. Uthe (1971) 184 N.W.2d 686, 688.)

“When the presence of new parties is required to grant complete relief as to a counterclaim or cross-petition, the court shall order them brought in if jurisdiction can be obtained.” (See Cowman v. LaVine (1975) 234 N.W.2d 114, 123.)

Rules for Filing a Motion for Joinder (of Necessary Parties)

Rule 1.234 of the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure governs joinder of necessary parties.

“Except as provided in this rule, all persons having a joint interest in any action shall be joined on the same side, but such persons failing to join as plaintiffs may be made defendants. This rule does not apply to class actions under rules 1.261 to 1.279, nor affect the options permitted by Iowa Code sections 613.1 and 613.2.” (See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.234(1).)

“A party is indispensable if the party's interest is not severable, and the party's absence will prevent the court from rendering any judgment between the parties before it; or if notwithstanding the party's absence the party's interest would necessarily be inequitably affected by a judgment rendered between those before the court.” (See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.234(2).)

“If an indispensable party is not before the court, it shall order the party brought in. When persons are not before the court who, although not indispensable, ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded between those already parties, and when necessary jurisdiction can be obtained by service of original notice in any manner provided by the rules in this chapter or by statute, the court shall order their names added as parties and original notice served upon them. If such jurisdiction cannot be had except by their consent or voluntary appearance, the court may proceed with the hearing and determination of the cause, but the judgment rendered therein shall not affect their rights or liabilities.” (See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.234(3).)

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

“The general rule is that joint tort-feasors may be joined in one action, and also that the granting of separate trials is ordinarily largely a matter within the discretion of the trial court.” (See Fay v. Dorow (1937) 224 Iowa 275, 278.)

"A district court abuses its discretion when the grounds underlying a district court order are clearly untenable or unreasonable." (See Fenceroy v. Gelita USA, Inc. (2018) 908 N.W.2d 235, 241; Sioux Pharm, Inc. v. Eagle Labs., Inc. (2015) 865 N.W.2d 528, 535; Mediacom Iowa, L.L.C. v. Inc. City of Spencer (2004) 682 N.W.2d 62, 66.)

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

It is well settled that “a party is indispensable if his interest . . . would necessarily be inequitably affected by a judgment rendered between those before the court.” (See Iowa State Commerce Com’n v. IGF Ins. Co (1981) 309 N.W.2d 445, 449.)

It is also well settled that “the proper relief for failure to add a necessary party is for the court to order the necessary party to be brought in. The lack of an indispensable party may be raised for the first time on appeal, and, if valid, the case is remanded to the trial court to bring in the missing indispensable parties.” (See Ditch v. Hess (1973) 212 N.W.2d 442, 450; In re Darrah, No. 21-1082, at *15 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2022).)