Indispensable Parties
Indispensable parties to a lawsuit are persons who have not only an interest in the lawsuit but also an interest of such a nature that a final judgment could not be rendered without affecting their interests. “Florida law defines ‘indispensable parties’ to a law suit as persons who have not only an interest in the controversy, but an interest of such a nature 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.” Mazza v. Santoni, 855 So. 2d 710, 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (quotation omitted).
Indispensable parties are those who are so important that the case should not be allowed to proceed without their joinder. Stated another way, “[a]n indispensable party ‘is one whose interest in the subject matter of the action is such that if he is not joined, a complete and efficient determination of the equities and rights and liabilities of the other parties is not possible.’” Gonzalez v. MI Temps of Fla. Corp., 664 So. 2d 17, 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (quotation omitted).
In other words, indispensable parties must be included in an action either as plaintiffs or defendants for the lawsuit to proceed. See Abramson v. Beer, 936 So. 2d 1208, 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding that an election official was an indispensable party to proceedings seeking injunctive ballot relief by a registered voter to remove a candidate from the ballot.). The failure to join indispensable parties may be grounds to dismiss a lawsuit if timely raised by motion. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(b)(7) (failure to join indispensable parties).
The court has the discretion to require the plaintiff to join an indispensable party, and upon its failure to do so, the judge may dismiss the action. For example, in a suit for conversion of an automobile titled in the name of the husband and the wife, the court properly required the plaintiff to add his wife as an indispensable party. See Scott v. Mico Auto Sales, Inc., 187 So. 2d 910, 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966) (in lawsuit by a car owner against a car dealership alleging that the dealership converted the plaintiff’s car, “it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to order that the plaintiff’s wife … in whose name title to the automobile also rests, be made a party to the cause….”).
Significantly, a party may be a proper party but not an indispensable party. “A proper party is one who has an interest in the subject matter of the action, but whose absence will not prevent a judgment determining substantial issues between the parties.” N & C Props. v. Vanguard Bank & Tr. Co., 519 So. 2d 1048, 1052 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). In other words, a proper party may have an interest in the lawsuit and could be joined as a plaintiff or defendant but, based on the particular facts at hand, that interest does not rise to the level that they must be joined.
For example, the court may not dismiss an action for the failure to join a joint obligee. See Phillips v. Choate, 456 So. 2d 556, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (holding that joint obligees were not indispensable parties. The plaintiffs, along with their son, filed a complaint against the co-owner of certain real property to enforce a written agreement. The court explained that the son, a joint obligee who had become a fugitive from justice, was an not indispensable party to the action for imposition of a trust on the proceeds of any sale of the property referred to in the agreement.).
Similarly, the court may not dismiss an action for the failure to join the co-payee of a check. See Glancy v. First Western Bank, 802 So. 2d 498, 500–01 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding that co-payees of checks were not indispensable to the issue of whether the bank was negligent in cashing the checks. “[T]he question to be asked is not whether the lawsuit should proceed without the missing parties, but rather whether the lawsuit can proceed without them. While the interests of judicial economy may be served by joining the other copayees named in the sued-upon checks, we simply cannot agree that this litigation cannot proceed in their absence.”).
Another wrinkle to the law on indispensable parties, at least in the area of torts, was created by the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993). In Fabre, the Court held that non-party joint tortfeasors may be joined as quasi-defendants for purposes of apportioning damages with the named defendants. Id. Subsequent courts have cast doubt on whether any party defendant can still be regarded as indispensable in any tort action. 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) (“Under Florida law, it is not necessary to join all persons potentially liable for damages for an action to proceed.”); Publicidad Vepaco, C.A. v. Mezerhane, 176 So. 3d 273, 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (reversing order dismissing plaintiffs’ action for failure to join indispensable parties).