If the missing party cannot be involved in the case, the court must decide whether it is possible to proceed without joining that party. If it is not possible to proceed, the appeal will be dismissed. Significantly, a party can be a real party, but not an indispensable party. “An ordinary party is a party who has an interest in the subject-matter of the action, but whose absence does not preclude a judgment establishing essential questions between the parties.” Accessories N&C. v. Vanguard Bank & Tr. Co., 519 So. 2d 1048, 1052 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
In other words, an appropriate party may have an interest in the action and could be joined as plaintiff or defendant, but on the basis of the particular facts at issue, that interest does not increase to the point that they must be joined. The court has the discretion to require the plaintiff to join an indispensable party and, if it fails to do so, the judge may dismiss the action. For example, in an action to convert an automobile in the name of husband and wife, the court correctly asked the plaintiff to add his wife as an indispensable part. See Scott v. Mico Auto Sales, Inc., 187 So. 2d 910, 911 (Fla.3d DCA 1966) (in a lawsuit brought by a car owner against a car dealership alleging that the dealership had converted the plaintiff`s car, “the trial court did not abuse its authority in ordering that the plaintiff`s wife . in the name of which ownership of the automobile is also suspended, a party to the case is made… »). The indispensable parties to a dispute are persons who have not only an interest in the dispute, but also an interest such that a final judgment cannot be rendered without prejudice to their interests. “Florida law defines `indispensable parties` in a lawsuit as persons who not only have an interest in the controversy, but an interest of such a nature that a final decree cannot be rendered without affecting that interest or leaving the controversy in such a state that its final termination may be wholly inconsistent with fairness and good conscience.” Mazza v. Santoni, 855 So.
2d 710, 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citation omitted). Once it has been established that a missing party is essential, the court must decide whether it is possible to involve that party in the case. In reaching this conclusion, the tribunal will use the same analysis it uses to determine whether it has jurisdiction over a party. First, it must decide whether it can exercise personal jurisdiction over the party. Second, it must examine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction affects its material jurisdiction. In diversity cases that have been tried by a federal court on the basis of all plaintiffs from different states as well as all defendants, a connection is not considered feasible if it destroys diversity. Nor can the court dismiss an action for non-membership with the co-payer of a cheque. See Glancy v. First Western Bank, 802 So.
2d 498, 500–01 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (indicating that cheque co-payers are not essential in determining whether the bank was negligent in cashing cheques. “The question that needs to be asked is not whether the action should continue without the missing parts, but rather whether the action can continue without them. While the interests of the judiciary can be served by joining the other co-payers named in the sued cheques, we simply cannot agree that this litigation cannot continue in their absence. No person who has an interest in the substantive question of a dispute such as a final decree may be rendered without that interest being affected or without leaving the controversy in a state in which his final decision would be totally unscrupulous. In some jurisdictions, failure to join an indispensable party does not impede the case. For example, the Commonwealth of Virginia does not recognize the doctrine of indispensable parts; While a defendant may argue that the plaintiff improperly failed to join a party that would normally be considered indispensable and may attempt to have the court attempt to join the missing party if it is not possible to join the missing party, the matter will simply proceed without them. In patent law, for example, the owner of a patent is an indispensable party to a patent infringement action brought by an exclusive licensee against an alleged infringer. The rights of the patent proprietor would be directly affected by the declaration of invalidity or unenforceability of the claims. At the same time, if the patent owner is not a party to the case, the alleged infringer could be sued separately by the patent owner and end up having to pay two judgments for the same act of infringement.
An indispensable party (also known as a requested party, a necessary part or a necessary and indispensable part) is a party to a dispute whose participation is necessary for jurisdiction or for the purposes of pronouncing the judgment. In reality, some of it may be “necessary” but not indispensable. For example, if they claim an interest in the dispute, that interest may be impeded if they have not intervened. This does not make it an indispensable part, unless its absence would threaten the interests of another party. An indispensable party is often any party whose rights are directly affected by the resolution of the case. In many jurisdictions, there are rules that require an indispensable party to join the case (brought to the case as a party) at the discretion of the judge; This is called non-membership of the party. [1] In some cases, the inability to join such a party means that the action must be dismissed. In the United States, this is described in Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Another bend in the law of indispensable parties, at least in the area of tort, was made by the decision of the Florida Supreme Court in Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (fla.
1993). In Fabre, the Court held that non-party accomplices may be joined as quasi-defendants in order to award damages to those defendants. Subsequent courts have expressed doubts as to whether a defendant can still be considered indispensable for tort liability. See Gonzalez v. MI Temps of Fla. Corp., 664 So. 2d 17, 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). See also Diaz v. Impex of Doral, Inc., 7 So.3d 591, 594 (Fla.3d DCA 2009) (“Florida law does not require you to join all persons potentially liable for damages to bring an action”); Publicidad Vepaco, C.A. v. Mezerhane, 176 So.3d 273, 276 (Fla.3d DCA 2015) (annulment order dismissing the applicants` action for failure to intervene by the indispensable parties).
The indispensable part is often an ongoing regulatory requirement. In other words, although the parties currently involved in litigation have a real cause or controversy, judges will not proceed without the indispensable party. This avoids potential duplication of litigation and potentially unfair results. In determining whether a party is indispensable, courts generally consider three factors: for example, the court cannot dismiss an action for non-intervention in a co-debtor. See Phillips v. Choate, 456 So. 2d 556, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (stating that joint creditors are not indispensable parties.
The plaintiffs, along with their son, sued the co-owner of certain properties to enforce a written agreement.