Reilly v. Reilly

• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Before ROONEY; CARDINE
• Citation: Reilly v. Reilly, 671 P.2d 330 (Wyo. 1983)
• Decision Date: 03 November 1983
• Docket Number: No. 83-87,83-87
• Parties: Michael Darryll REILLY, Appellant (Defendant), v. Rimvyda Eleonora REILLY, Appellee (Plaintiff).

Page 330

671 P.2d 330

Michael Darryll REILLY, Appellant (Defendant), v. Rimvyda Eleonora REILLY, Appellee (Plaintiff).

No. 83-87.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Nov. 3, 1983.

John E. Masters of Dray, Madison & Thomson, P.C., Cheyenne, for appellant.

Michael H. Schilling of Pence & MacMillan, Laramie, for appellee.

Before ROONEY, C.J., and THOMAS, ROSE, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.

CARDINE, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of divorce. The principal issues appealed to this court involve the division of property.

We will affirm.

Appellant raises the following issues:

"A. FAILURE TO JOIN INDISPENSABLE PARTIES

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO JOIN INDISPENSABLE PARTIES. Defendant has been prejudiced by the Court's division of property without having first determin[ed] the existence and extent of the property ownership of the parties. This fact could be accomplished only by joinder of the other shareholders. Alternatively, the Defendant has been prejudiced by the Court's Order that the Defendant must purchase an interest from the Plaintiff in property the Plaintiff did not own and could not convey to him.

"B. IMPROPER USE OF DISCOVERY DEPOSITION

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO USE DEFENDANT'S DISCOVERY DEPOSITION IN LIEU OF ACTUAL TESTIMONY BY PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT. In addition to violating procedural rules for presentation of evidence, the trial court permitted a violation of Defendant's right to interrogate the witness in open court before the trier of fact. This procedure denied the Defendant the right to effectively confront and cross-examine the witness."

FACTS

Appellee-plaintiff sued and appellant-defendant counter-claimed for divorce from one another. Incidental to the divorce both parties requested an equitable division of property. There was a stipulation for the custody and support of the children, and that is not an issue in this case.

The dispute at trial concerning the property centered primarily around the existence, the extent of ownership, and value of an interest in a closely held corporation known as Mikvyda, Inc., which owned and operated a McDonald's fast food franchise at Laramie, Wyoming. The corporation was owned by appellee, appellant, and appellant's parents. Appellee filed a Motion to Estop Defendant [appellant] From Denying the Existence of Certain Marital Assets. At the conclusion of the hearing on this motion, the court found that the appellee and appellant

" * * * are owners of an interest in Mikvyda, Inc. and such ownership constitutes a portion of the marital estate, and Defendant is estopped to deny the existence of such interest as a marital asset, subject to future determination at trial by this Court of the extent and valuation of such ownership."

Appellant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and for failure to join indispensable parties. The court denied both of these motions.

During the course of discovery, appellant noticed the taking of the deposition of appellee's expert witness employed to testify concerning the value of the Mikvyda marital asset. The notice stated that the deposition would be taken for the purpose of discovery upon oral examination. Appellee offered, and the discovery deposition of the witness was received at trial over appellant's objection.

There was conflicting testimony concerning the extent of ownership in Mikvyda, Inc. The corporation has never issued stock nor have stock subscription agreements been executed and approved. At various times throughout the course of the marriage, appellant represented to appellee and to others that he believed he owned 44% to 49% of the stock of the corporation. Tax returns filed with the Internal Revenue Service indicated that the extent of ownership was 44%.

Both parties presented expert testimony on the question of the value of Mikvyda, Inc. The court found that the extent of the appellee's marital interest in Mikvyda, Inc. was 22% and valued this interest at $121,517.88. After deducting the difference between the equity in the respective parties' residences, the court awarded to appellee $75,117.88 to be paid in equal monthly installments over a ten-year period. The defendant was awarded as his sole and separate property such interest as the parties had in Mikvyda, Inc.

I

FAILURE TO JOIN INDISPENSABLE PARTIES.

Appellant argues that in order to determine the degree of ownership in the Mikvyda marital asset, it was essential that the non-party, co-owners be joined. Appellant contended that an equitable division of this interest could not be made without first determining the extent of all ownership in Mikvyda, and that the absence of the other co-owners in the corporation precluded the trial court from determining the rights of the husband and wife. Rule 19, W.R.C.P., governs joinder, and provides in part:

"(a) Persons to be joined if feasible.--A person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) 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 (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest. If he has not been so joined, the court shall order that he be made a party. If he should join as a plaintiff but refuses to do so, he may be made a defendant. If the joined party objects to venue and his joinder would render the venue of the action improper, he shall be dismissed from the action."

We are not concerned with whether or not appellant's parents were proper parties to the action in order to avoid a multiplicity of suits because there was no effort by either party to bring them into the litigation. American Beryllium & Oil Corp. v. Chase, Wyo., 425 P.2d 66 (1967). Proper parties may, but need not, be joined.

Still we have the question, were appellant's parents indispensable parties? We have defined an indispensable party as:

" 'An indispensable party has been defined as one without whose presence before the court a final decree could not be made without either affecting his interest or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final determination might be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. * * * Whether or not a person is an indispensable party cannot be determined by a prescribed formula because the facts peculiar to each case are determinative of that question. * * * ' " Id. at 68.

In Washington v. United States, 87 F.2d 421, 427 (9th Cir.1936), the court set out the following criteria for determining whether or not a party is indispensable:

" * * * After first determining that such party is interested in the controversy, the court must make a determination of the following questions applied to the particular case: (1) Is the interest of the absent party distinct and severable? (2) In the absence of such party, can the court render justice between the parties before it? (3) Will the decree made, in the absence of such party, have no injurious effect on the interest of such absent party? (4) Will the final determination, in the absence of such party, be consistent with equity and good conscience?

"If, after the court determines that an absent party is interested in the controversy, it finds that all of the four questions outlined above are answered in the affirmative with respect to the absent party's interest, then such absent party [may be a proper or] a necessary party. However, if any one of the four questions is answered in the negative, then the absent party is indispensable." See also, Photometric Products Corp. v. Radtke, 17 F.R.D. 103, 109 (D.C.N.Y.1954); American Beryllium & Oil Corp. v. Chase, supra; Oxley v. Mine & Smelter Supply Co., Wyo., 439 P.2d 661 (1968).

Some courts make a distinction between necessary and indispensable parties. Necessary parties are those who might be joined to save further litigation or to protect the interest of another party. 59 Am.Jur.2d Parties § 12. It is not error for the court to refuse to join either proper or necessary parties. Only indispensable parties must be joined.

In this situation, the four questions can...