Motion for Joinder (of Necessary Parties) in Kansas

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

"Necessary parties include those who have such an interest in the controversy that a final decree cannot be made without either affecting that interest or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final termination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience — those who are classed as indispensable parties, without whom the court will not proceed to final decision. . .” (See Poteet v. Simmons (1951) 171 Kan. 86, 89; 39 Am. Jur. 902, § 35.)

“Persons may be necessary parties in the sense that their presence in a suit is necessary to the rendition of a judgment or decree which will finally determine all rights and interests involved in the controversy, but if their rights or interests are so separable and severable that a final and just judgment can be rendered settling the right of those who are made parties, then such persons are not indispensable parties. . .” (See id.)

“On the other hand, it may be stated as a broad rule that a person may not be made a party defendant against whom no relief is sought and who has no interest that may be affected by any decree or judgment rendered in the controversy." (See id)

Rules for Joinder (of Necessary Parties)

Required joinder of parties is governed under subsection 60-219 of the Kansas statutes.

“A person who is subject to service of process must be joined as a party if:

1. In that person's absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or
2. that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence may: (i) As a practical matter, impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest; or (ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.”

(See Kan. Stat. § 60-219(a)(1).)

“If a person has not been joined as required, the court must order that the person be made a party. A person who refuses to join as a plaintiff may be made either a defendant or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff.” (See Kan. Stat. § 60-219(a)(2).)

Permissive joinder of parties is governed under subsection 60-220 of the Kansas statutes.

“Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if:

1. They assert any right to relief jointly, severally or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences; and
2. any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.”

(See Kan. Stat. § 60-220(a)(1).)

“Persons may be joined in one action as defendants if:

1. Any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences; and
2. any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.”

(See Kan. Stat. § 60-220(a)(2).)

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

“We review the denial of a motion to join a necessary party under K.S.A. 60-219 under an abuse of discretion standard.” (See Belmore v. Goldizen 124, 771, at *10 (Kan. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2023); Landmark Nat'l Bank v. Kesler (2009) 289 Kan. 528, Syl. ¶ 1, 216 P.3d 158.)

“Whether the evidence demonstrates that the statutory requirements for joinder have been met is a mixed question of fact and law. When reviewing a mixed question of fact and law, an appellate court reviews the district court's factual findings for substantial competent evidence and reviews de novo the district court's legal conclusions.” (See id; State v. Fisher (2007) 283 Kan. 272, 286, 154 P.3d 455.)

“Intervention as a matter of right is subject to the same mixed determination of law and fact as is joinder.” (See Landmark Nat'l Bank v. Kesler (2009) 289 Kan. 528, Syl. ¶ 1, 216 P.3d 158; K.S.A. 60-224(a).)

“Permissive intervention lies within the discretion of the district court.” (See Landmark Nat'l Bank v. Kesler (2009) 289 Kan. 528, Syl. ¶ 1, 216 P.3d 158; K.S.A. 60-224(b); Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in Action (1987) 480 U.S. 370, 382 n. 1, 94 L. Ed. 2d 389, 107 S. Ct. 1177.)

“Judicial discretion is abused when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.” (See Landmark Nat'l Bank v. Kesler (2009) 289 Kan. 528, Syl. ¶ 1, 216 P.3d 158; Harsch v. Miller (2009) 288 Kan. 280, 293, 200 P.3d 467.)

“Review for abuse of discretion includes review to determine whether erroneous legal conclusions guided the exercise of discretion.” (See Landmark Nat'l Bank v. Kesler (2009) 289 Kan. 528, Syl. ¶ 1, 216 P.3d 158; State v. Skolaut (2008) 286 Kan. 219, Syl. ¶ 3, 182 P.3d 1231.)

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

It is well settled that “necessary parties are those who must be included in an action either as plaintiffs or defendants unless there is a valid excuse for their nonjoinder." (See Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Luna (2021) 498 P.3d 1248; City of Hutchinson v. Hutchinson (1973) 213 Kan. 399, 405, 517 P.2d 117.)

It is also well settled that “the determination of a necessary or indispensable party in a particular action turns not on the type of action, e.g., a partition, but rather on whether the court can arrive at a just adjudication without joining that party in the action, i.e., whether the nonjoined party's interests will be adversely affected by the court's judgment.” (See McGinty v. Hoosier (2010) 291 Kan. 224, 235; Toklan Royalty Corp. v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. (1949) 168 Kan. 259, 212 P.2d 348.)