![]() He has incurred only a single obligation and should be sued only once for it. In the case of joint obligees, their joinder would also protect the defendant from undue harassment. In either case completeness of judgment and avoidance of unnecessary litigation will be furthered, which is in society’s interest. There is possibly good reason for joinder of all joint obligees where that is practicable. Jur.2d Parties § 13, it is not now always the case that inability of some joint obligees to join another obligee requires dismissal for failure to join an indispensable party.” “While at common law the general rule was that all parties having a joint interest in the subject of a contract action had to be joined as plaintiffs, see 39 Fla. ![]() The court then addressed the principal question in the case, which was whether Mark Phillips, a joint obligee, was an indispensable party to the action for imposition of a trust on the proceeds of any sale of the property discussed in the agreement. On appeal, this court quickly resolved the power of attorney issue, remarking that the agreement prohibited any assignment without the express written consent of all of the parties. The trial court granted Choate’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the amended complaint failed to include an indispensable party-Mark Phillips. At this point in the facts, Mark Phillips had become a “fugitive from justice” and was “not available.” 456 So.2d at 557. Consequently, Herbert and Annette Phillips filed an amended complaint against Choate, but this time, Herbert asserted that he was filing the suit as Mark’s agent, and that, pursuant to a power of attorney, he had appointed to himself Mark’s interest in the property. The initial complaint was dismissed as to Mark Phillips as a sanction for failing to attend a deposition. The Phillipses became apprehensive of Choate’s intentions and brought an action for declaration of a constructive trust on the proceeds from the sale of the property. Consistent with the contract, Choate was expected to sell the property and distribute the proceeds between himself and the Phillipses. The complaint purported that all of the named parties entered into a written agreement relating to the disposal of real property that belonged to the parties. ![]() In Phillips, Herbert and Annette Phillips, along with their son Mark, filed a complaint against Arthur Choate.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |