Motion for Joinder (of Necessary Parties) in Montana

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

"Whenever feasible, persons materially interested in the subject of an action [must] be joined so that they may be heard and a complete disposition of the case be made." (See Mohl v. Johnson (1996) 275 Mont. 167, 171; Village Bank v. Cloutier (1991) 249 Mont. 25, 29, 813 P.2d 971, 974.)

“Additionally, under Rule 19(a), M.R.Civ.P., a person who is subject to service of process must be joined as a party if he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may leave any of the persons already parties subject to substantial risk of incurring double, multiple or otherwise inconsistent obligations.” (See id; State ex rel. Boyne USA v. District Court (1987), 228 Mont. 314, 319, 742 P.2d 464, 467.)

“Rule 21, M.R.Civ.P., [also] addresses joinder of parties, and provides, in pertinent part, that: parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just.” (See Mountain West Bank v. Mine Mill Hydraulics (2003) 314 Mont. 248, 258.)

“Joinder is to be liberally allowed.” (See Haele v. Kuhl (2022) MT 69, 7-8; Ioerger v. Reiner (2005) 327 Mont. 424, 426.)

Rules for Joinder (of Necessary Parties)

Rule 19 the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure governs required joinder of parties.

“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 M.R. Civ. P. 19(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 M.R. Civ. P. 19(a)(2).)

“If a person who is required to be joined if feasible cannot be joined, the court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed.” (See M.R. Civ. P. 19(b).)

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

“The joinder of parties in an action is a discretionary ruling on the part of the district court.” (See Haele v. Kuhl (2022) MT 69, 7-8; Ioerger v. Reiner (2005) 327 Mont. 424, 426.)

"We review discretionary trial court rulings for an abuse of discretion." (See id; Konitz v. Claver (1998) 287 Mont. 301, 309.)

“The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted arbitrarily without employment of conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice.” (See Tripp v. Jeld-Wen, Inc. (2005) 327 Mont. 146, 149; Jarvenpaa v. Glacier Electric Co-op (1998) 292 Mont. 118, 121.)

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

It is well settled that “a person subject to service must be joined as a party if in that person's absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties[.]" (See Quarter Circle JP Ranch, LLC v. Jerde (2018) 391 Mont. 104, 113.)

It is also well settled that “generally, a person who is not a party to an action, cannot be a party to the judgment of that action." (See Ioerger v. Reiner (2005) 327 Mont. 424, 427; Baltrusch v. Baltrusch (2003) 319 Mont. 23, 34.)