N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-019
N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-019
For real parties in interest, see Rule 1-017 NMRA. For joinder of claims and remedies, see Rule 1-018 NMRA. For permissive joinder of parties, see Rule 1-020 NMRA. For rule relating to misjoinder and nonjoinder, see Rule 1-021 NMRA. For interpleader, see Rule 1-022 NMRA. For class actions, see Rule 1-023 NMRA. For derivative action by shareholders, see Rule 1-023.1 NMRA. For rule relating to intervention, see Rule 1-024 NMRA. For parties defendant where several persons are liable on contract, judgment or statute, see Section 38-4-2 NMSA 1978. For joint and several liability on contracts, and suit on joint obligations or assumptions by partners and others, see Section 38-4-3 NMSA 1978. For provision relating to suits against partnerships or partners, see Section 38-4-5 NMSA 1978. For parties to partition, see Section 42-5-2 NMSA 1978. Compiler's notes. - Rules 1-019 to 1-021 NMRA are deemed to have superseded 105-105, C.S. 1929, relating to joinder of plaintiffs; 105-106, C.S. 1929, relating to persons who may be defendants; 105-107, C.S. 1929, relating to joinder of parties, and making persons refusing to join defendants; and 105-108, C.S. 1929, relating to joinder of defendants. Paragraph B is deemed to have superseded 105-607, C.S. 1929, relating to bringing in new parties. I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION. Three-part analysis. - This rule has been synthesized into a three-part analysis: (1) whether a party is necessary to the litigation; (2) whether a necessary party can be joined; and (3) whether the litigation can proceed if a necessary party cannot be joined. Little v. Gill, 2003-NMCA-103, 134 N.M. 321, 76 P.3d 639. Rule requires practical analysis. Simon Neustadt Family Center v. Bludworth, 1982-NMCA-032, 97 N.M. 500, 641 P.2d 531, overruled on other grounds, Melnick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 1988 -NMSC-012, 106 N.M. 726, 749 P.2d 1105. Construction of rules together. - Rule 17(a) (see now Rule 1-017 NMRA) must be read with Rules 18(a), 19(a) and 23(b) (see now Rules 1-018, 1-019 and 1-023.1 NMRA). Prager v. Prager, 1969-NMSC-149, 80 N.M. 773, 461 P.2d 906. Rules procedural. - This rule and Rules 18 and 20 (see now Rules 1-018 and 1-020 NMRA) are procedural and do not control substantive rights. Chapman v. Farmers Ins. Group, 1976-NMCA-128, 90 N.M. 18, 558 P.2d 1157, cert. denied, 90 N.M. 254, 561 P.2d 1347 (1977). Parties not identical. - These rules, as well as common understanding of what is meant by a party to a lawsuit, are inconsistent with position that all parties on one side of lawsuit are but one party. Romero v. Felter, 1972-NMSC-032, 83 N.M. 736, 497 P.2d 738. Party participating in adjudicatory hearing is party to proceedings on appeal. - The last employer of a claimant for unemployment compensation, where it participates in the adjudicatory hearing before the employment security commission (now employment security department), is a party to the proceedings in the district court on appeal, and that court may properly deny a commission (department) motion to dismiss for failure to join the last employer. Abernathy v. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 1979-NMSC-047, 93 N.M. 71, 596 P.2d 514. Party raising claim on appeal. - When a Rule 19 claim is raised for the first time on appeal, the analysis differs from when it is raised before a judgment is entered. C.E. Alexander & Sons v. DEC Int'l, Inc., 1991-NMSC-049, 112 N.M. 89, 811 P.2d 899. Party added after time to file petition has expired. - Where an indispensable or necessary party is subject to service of process and is otherwise capable of being joined as a party to a proceeding under Section 3-21-9 NMSA 1978 challenging the issuance of a zoning variance, the district court has jurisdiction to add such party to the proceeding after the time to file the petition has expired. State ex rel. Sweet v. Village of Jemez Springs, Inc., 1992-NMCA-085, 114 N.M. 297, 837 P.2d 1380. II. NECESSARY PARTIES. A. IN GENERAL. Courts do not favor leaving a party without a remedy because of an ideal desire to have all interested persons before the court. Grady v. Mullins, 1983-NMSC-017, 99 N.M. 614, 661 P.2d 1313. Whether joinder required determined in context. - A determination of whether Paragraph A requires joinder of a particular person must be made in the context of the particular litigation. State ex rel. Blanchard v. City Comm'rs, 1988-NMCA-008, 106 N.M. 769, 750 P.2d 469. New Mexico makes no distinction between necessary and indispensable parties; if person's interests are necessarily affected by judgment, such person is indispensable party. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Foundation Reserve Ins. Co., 1967 -NMSC-197, 78 N.M. 359, 431 P.2d 737. Necessary parties and indispensable parties are synonymous terms in this state. Sellman v. Haddock, 1957-NMSC-037, 62 N.M. 391, 310 P.2d 1045. "Necessary parties". - Persons having an interest in controversy, and who ought to be made parties in order that court may finally determine entire controversy and do complete justice by adjusting all rights involved, are commonly termed "necessary parties." State ex rel. Walker v. Hastings, 1968-NMCA-046, 79 N.M. 338, 443 P.2d 508. This rule does not require joinder of every person who might have standing to challenge an action, and neither does 44-6-12 NMSA 1978; requiring the joinder of every citizen or taxpayer in the suit would defeat the purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act. San Juan Water Comm'n v. Taxpayers & Water Users, 1993-NMSC-050, 116 N.M. 106, 860 P.2d 748. Person necessarily affected as indispensable parties. - All persons whose interests will necessarily be affected by judgment or order in particular case are necessary and indispensable parties, and court cannot proceed to judgment without such parties. Meeker v. Walker, 1969-NMSC-053, 80 N.M. 280, 454 P.2d 762; American Trust & Sav. Bank v. Scobee, 1924-NMSC-022, 29 N.M. 436, 224 P. 788; Burguete v. Del Curto, 1945-NMSC-025, 49 N.M. 292, 163 P.2d 257; State ex rel. Del Curto v. District Court, 1947-NMSC-032, 51 N.M. 297, 183 P.2d 607; Sullivan v. Albuquerque Nat'l Trust & Sav. Bank, 1947-NMSC-054, 51 N.M. 456, 188 P.2d 169; Keirsey v. Hirsch, 1953-NMSC-112, 58 N.M. 18, 265 P.2d 346; Swayze v. Bartlett, 1954-NMSC-019, 58 N.M. 504, 273 P.2d 367; State ex rel. Skinner v. District Court, 1955-NMSC-106, 60 N.M. 255, 291 P.2d 301; Sellman v. Haddock, 1957-NMSC-037, 62 N.M. 391, 310 P.2d 1045; State ex rel. Reynolds v. W.S. Ranch Co., 1961-NMSC-061, 69 N.M. 169, 364 P.2d 1036; State Game Comm'n v. Tackett, 1962-NMSC-154, 71 N.M. 400, 379 P.2d 54; State ex rel. Clinton Realty Co. v. Scarborough, 1967-NMSC-152, 78 N.M. 132, 429 P.2d 330; State ex rel. Walker v. Hastings, 1968-NMCA-046, 79 N.M. 338, 443 P.2d 508. Indispensable party is one whose interests will be necessarily affected by judgment in particular case. Sanford v. Stoll, 1974-NMCA-003, 86 N.M. 6, 518 P.2d 1210; Home Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Schultz, 1969-NMSC-113, 80 N.M. 517, 458 P.2d 592. Test for indispensability. - Tests for indispensability are whether person owns right being enforced and whether he is in position to release and discharge defendant from liability being asserted. Crego Block Co. v. D.H. Overmyer Co., 1969-NMSC-117, 80 N.M. 541, 458 P.2d 793; see also catchline, "Test for Real Party in Interest," in notes to Rule 1-017. District court's order to join necessary parties was an abuse of discretion where the order was based on a misinterpretation of the nature of the dispute. - In an action to enforce water rights, where the district court misinterpreted the nature of the dispute set out in plaintiff's complaint, specifically where the district court believed plaintiff sought a re-adjudication of water rights rather than enforcement of a valid court decree, the district court abused its discretion in ordering joinder of the parties because its misinterpretation formed the foundation of its decision that the additional parties were necessary to the litigation of plaintiff's claims. Lujan v. Acequia Mesa Del Medio, 2019-NMCA-017, cert. granted. Nonjoinder results in dismissal where interests of absent party or litigants significantly impaired. - The adoption of this rule, as amended, mitigated the harshness of prior provisions of the rule. The revision has not, however, extinguished the rule that the nonjoinder of a party will result in the dismissal of a cause of action, where the party's absence will prevent the court from granting complete relief, significantly impair the interests of the absent party or expose litigants to possible multiple liability or inconsistent obligations. Montoya v. Department of Fin. & Admin., 1982-NMCA-051, 98 N.M. 408, 649 P.2d 476. Joinder of necessary party could be accomplished at any stage of proceedings. Eldridge v. Salazar, 1970-NMSC-008, 81 N.M. 128, 464 P.2d 547. Court cannot proceed to judgment in absence of indispensable party. Herrera v. Springer Corp., 1973-NMCA-041, 85 N.M. 6, 508 P.2d 1303, rev'd on other grounds, 1973-NMSC-057, 85 N.M. 201, 510 P.2d 1072. Because former department of hospitals and institutions was not joined in commitment hearing, trial court properly refused to render judgment concerning constitutional adequacy of treatment provided by state hospital. In re Valdez, 1975-NMSC-050, 88 N.M. 338, 540 P.2d 818. Where party seeks relief from court of equity, he must have before the court all parties whose rights may be affected by relief sought. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Raton Natural Gas Co., 1974-NMSC-030, 86 N.M. 160, 521 P.2d 122. Under the current rule, which articulates a balancing test to determine whether a suit can continue without a party and leaves to the court's discretion the performance of that test, the supreme court does not consider the test of indispensability to be jurisdictional. C.E. Alexander & Sons v. DEC Int'l, Inc., 1991-NMSC-049, 112 N.M. 89, 811 P.2d 899, overruling precedent to the contrary, including Holguin v. Elephant Butte Irrigation Dist., 1977-NMSC-073, 91 N.M. 398, 575 P.2d 88. Absent necessary parties suit inherently defective. - Where necessary parties cannot for any reason be brought before court, there is nothing to be done except to dismiss the bill, for the suit is inherently defective. State ex rel. Walker v. Hastings, 1968-NMCA-046, 79 N.M. 338, 443 P.2d 508; State Game Comm'n v. Tackett, 1962-NMSC-154, 71 N.M. 400, 379 P.2d 54. Absence of commissioner of public lands, when not only a necessary but an indispensable party, completely deprived court of jurisdiction to proceed in absence of such party, and any judgment rendered in his absence would be a nullity and subject to collateral attack. State Game Comm'n v. Tackett, 1962-NMSC-154, 71 N.M. 400, 379 P.2d 54. Plaintiff could not prevail on claim that county commissioners either did not legally give permission for defendant to build pipeline or that such permission was misconstrued by defendant and trial court, since trial court lacked jurisdiction because of absence of county commissioners, who were necessary parties to suit attacking their actions. Perez v. Gallegos, 1974-NMSC-102, 87 N.M. 161, 530 P.2d 1155. Opportunity to join. - If a timely objection is made for nonjoinder of a necessary party, when joinder is feasible the claimant should be given an opportunity to add the nonjoined person and if he fails to do so the claim should be dismissed. G.E.W. Mechanical Contractors v. Johnston Co., 1993-NMCA-081, 115 N.M. 727, 858 P.2d 103. Raising absence on appeal. - Objection that indispensable party was absent from case may be made, if not before, in supreme court. Sellman v. Haddock, 1957-NMSC-037, 62 N.M. 391, 310 P.2d 1045. Joinder not feasible. - Trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint without prejudice on the ground that the plaintiff failed to join an Indian tribe as a necessary and indispensable party, even though sovereign immunity precluded joinder of the tribe. Golden Oil Co. v. Chace Oil Co., 2000-NMCA-005, 128 N.M. 526, 994 P.2d 772. Dismissal where deceased defendant not substituted. - Trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's complaint against defendant tortfeasor's insurer where defendant tortfeasor died during the pendency of the action and plaintiff did not move to substitute another defendant. Little v. Gill, 2003-NMCA-103, 134 N.M. 321, 76 P.3d 639. B. PARTIES INDISPENSABLE. Tribe is an indispensable party to quiet title action involving tribal land. - Where a pueblo purchased land outside the boundaries of the pueblo and plaintiff filed suit against the pueblo and other defendants to quiet title to the land, the pueblo was a necessary party to the litigation and an indispensable party to plaintiff's claims against the other defendants and because the pueblo was immune from suit under the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity and could not be joined, plaintiff's claims against the other defendants could not be maintained. Armijo v. Pueblo of Laguna, 2011-NMCA-006, 149 N.M. 234, 247 P.3d 1119, cert. denied, 2010-NMCERT-012, 150 N.M. 492, 263 P.3d 269. In an action to declare a road a public road, the county in which the road is located is an indispensable party. Percha Creek Mining, LLC v. Fust, 2008-NMCA-100, 144 N.M. 569, 189 P.3d 702. Tribes indispensable parties to Indian gaming legislation challenge. - Dismissal of an action attacking the legality of legislation authorizing Indian gaming in New Mexico (11-13-1 and 11-13-2 NMSA 1978) was required because the plaintiffs cannot join certain indispensable parties, namely the various Tribes and Pueblos that have gaming compacts with the state. State ex rel. Coll v. Johnson, 1999-NMSC-036, 128 N.M. 154, 990 P.2d 1277. Heirs indispensable to suit to enforce contract with decedent. - Determination of basic issue involved in suit by purchaser's administratrix for specific enforcement of contract, which would vest in heirs' legal title to property involved, affected heirs' interests and they were indispensable parties to suit. Keirsey v. Hirsch, 1953-NMSC-112, 58 N.M. 18, 265 P.2d 346; see also, State ex rel. Skinner v. District Court, 1955-NMSC-106, 60 N.M. 255, 291 P.2d 301. Liquor license purchaser indispensable in suit to delay transfer. - Purchaser of liquor license under order of district court in connection with foreclosure sale of motel was an indispensable party to mandamus action brought by creditors of former licensees to preclude transfer of license until debts owed to said creditors were paid; court was without jurisdiction to proceed in petitioner's absence. State ex rel. Clinton Realty Co. v. Scarborough, 1967-NMSC-152, 78 N.M. 132, 429 P.2d 330. Co-trustee was an indispensable party to a foreclosure action brought against a judgment debtor and another trustee, where the co-trustee's rights were affected by the judgment ordering foreclosure, and his rights differed from those of the other defendants. Armendaris Water Dev. Co. v. Rainwater, 1989-NMCA-077, 109 N.M. 71, 781 P.2d 799. Title company necessary party in foreclosure suit. - In action by beneficiaries to foreclose deed of trust, title company named as trustee in deed of trust and holder of agreement by beneficiaries that deed of trust was to be subordinated to mortgage on land, and which had insured mortgaged land, was necessary party. Eldridge v. Salazar, 1970-NMSC-008, 81 N.M. 128, 464 P.2d 547. Insurer necessary party to suit against third person. - Insurer that has paid its insured for loss, in whole or in part, is necessary and indispensable party to an action to recover amounts paid from third party allegedly responsible therefor. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Raton Natural Gas Co., 1974-NMSC-030, 86 N.M. 160, 521 P.2d 122; Torres v. Gamble, 1966-NMSC-024, 75 N.M. 741, 410 P.2d 959. Insured was indispensable party in declaratory judgment suit brought by insurer to establish breach of contract by insured in failing to cooperate with defense of tort suit, where judgment would relieve insurer from contract obligations to defend and to pay any judgment rendered against insured. Home Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Schultz, 1969-NMSC-113, 80 N.M. 517, 458 P.2d 592. Employee indispensable party in employer's insurer's suit against third party. - Where an employer's insurer has paid workmen's compensation benefits to an injured employee who has a cause of action against a third party who is allegedly liable for the employee's injuries, but the employee declines to prosecute the suit or assign her cause of action to the insurer, the insurer may bring suit against the third party by joining the employee as an indispensable party under this rule. The employee then becomes an involuntary plaintiff in order to avoid the injustice of depriving the insurer of its statutory right to reimbursement under former 52-1-56C NMSA 1978. Continental Cas. Co. v. Wueschinski, 1981-NMCA-035, 95 N.M. 733, 625 P.2d 1250. Insured and insurer as necessary parties. - Where cause of action was based upon alleged negligence on part of defendant resulting in damage to plaintiff's automobile and plaintiff assigned an interest in recovery of damages to insurer, both plaintiff and insurer were necessary parties to any action prosecuted for recovery on account of damage done to plaintiff's automobile. Sellman v. Haddock, 1957-NMSC-037, 62 N.M. 391, 310 P.2d 1045, distinguished, Home Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Pan Am. Petroleum Corp., 1963-NMSC-094, 72 N.M. 163, 381 P.2d 675. Commissioner of Public Lands necessary party to state lease controversy. - In controversy concerning legality of state lease, eligibility of lessee thereunder, performance of lease, reservations, if any, in lease, or matter of public policy requiring passage thereon by commissioner of public lands, then commissioner is not only a necessary party, but is an indispensable party. State Game Comm'n v. Tackett, 1962-NMSC-154, 71 N.M. 400, 379 P.2d 54. In an action to enjoin and restrain state game commission from authorizing its permittees and licensees to go upon state leased lands of plaintiff for purpose of hunting wild game thereon, commissioner of public lands was an indispensable party. State Game Comm'n v. Tackett, 1962-NMSC-154, 71 N.M. 400, 379 P.2d 54. Highway commission indispensable where its contract involved. - Highway commission, as party to contract which was to be interpreted in resolution of dispute and under which defendant was acting, had an interest in controversy which any final judgment or decree entered would affect, and was therefore an indispensable party. State ex rel. Walker v. Hastings, 1968-NMCA-046, 79 N.M. 338, 443 P.2d 508. United States indispensable party in suit over water use. - Since relief sought, in suit to enjoin federal officials from using certain waters, would reach beyond right to waters claimed, affecting public domain and treasury and interfering with public administration, United States was an indispensable party. Elephant Butte Irrigation Dist. v. Gatlin, 1956-NMSC-030, 61 N.M. 58, 294 P.2d 628. Necessary party in challenge to taxability of federal contractor. - Where United States advanced amount assessed under former Emergency School Tax Act to corporation furnishing services and materials to it, which amount was paid by corporation under protest, United States had a financial interest in cause of action and was proper and necessary party to seek declaratory judgment that neither it nor corporation were subject to such tax. United States v. Bureau of Revenue, 1961-NMSC-126, 69 N.M. 101, 364 P.2d 356. Joinder of closely held corporation properly required. - Where action was brought, alleging fraud and negligence in connection with financing and purchasing of oil royalty interests by corporation owned and controlled by plaintiff, his wife and children, trial court did not abuse its discretion by requiring that corporation be joined as an indispensable party; plaintiff, having refused to amend so as to join corporation, could not be heard to complain. Meeker v. Walker, 1969-NMSC-053, 80 N.M. 280, 454 P.2d 762. Utility's customers in action to enjoin them from receiving service. - Customers of an electric utility are indispensable parties in respect of an action to enjoin them from receiving electric utility service. Springer Elec. Coop. v. City of Raton, 1983-NMSC-036, 99 N.M. 625, 661 P.2d 1324. Applicant for zoning variance indispensable party. - Where party seeks to overturn a decision authorizing a zoning variance, the applicant for the variance is an indispensable or necessary party. State ex rel. Sweet v. Village of Jemez Springs, Inc., 1992-NMCA-085, 114 N.M. 297, 837 P.2d 1380. Tribes indispensable parties to IGRA action. - In action by gamblers against financial institutions and government agencies, the Indian casinos were indispensable parties because of their need to protect the legal interests; however, because sovereign immunity prevented the tribes' joinder, the suits had to be dismissed. Srader v. Verant, 1998-NMSC-025, 125 N.M. 521, 964 P.2d 82. Co-owner of land in a boundary dispute is a necessary party. - In a landowner boundary dispute, where the district court, in an oral ruling, dismissed an adjudication of boundaries claim because indispensable parties were absent, it was error for the district court to later decide the boundaries claim when it failed to conduct a complete analysis of joinder under 1-019(A) NMRA. Hancock v. Nicoley, 2016-NMCA-081. C. PARTIES NOT INDISPENSABLE. Creditors of plaintiff are not indispensable parties to action merely because they may have right to subject possible recovery by such plaintiff to payment of their accounts. Irwin v. Lamar, 1964-NMSC-253, 74 N.M. 811, 399 P.2d 400. Bank not indispensable in tort suit over repossession. - Bank was not indispensable party in suit for conversion and invasion of privacy relating to repossession of plaintiff's automobile by defendant, who had been authorized by bank to contact plaintiff for collection purposes. Sanford v. Stoll, 1974-NMCA-003, 86 N.M. 6, 518 P.2d 1210. Contractor not indispensable party in mechanic's lien foreclosure suit. Crego Block Co. v. D.H. Overmyer Co., 1969-NMSC-117, 80 N.M. 541, 458 P.2d 793. Mineral rights purchasers not required in foreclosure. - Purchasers of mineral interests after fee simple estate was assessed for taxes were not indispensable parties to foreclosure of tax lien. Coulter v. Gough, 1969-NMSC-057, 80 N.M. 312, 454 P.2d 969. Maker of different note not necessary party. - In suit on one of two separate promissory notes given by two persons in exchange for joint interest in oil and gas lease, maker of other note was neither necessary nor proper party to action. Good v. Harris, 1966-NMSC-249, 77 N.M. 178, 420 P.2d 767. Assignor not indispensable in suit on note. - In suit based upon note payable to A and B, where A has assigned his interest in note to B, A is not a necessary or indispensable party. Good v. Harris, 1966-NMSC-249, 77 N.M. 178, 420 P.2d 767. Owners with similar claims not necessary to quiet title suit. - In quiet title action brought by owners of some of the property bordering 20 foot wide strip next to railway right-of-way, ownership of which was at issue, wherein plaintiffs' property was held to extend to railroad right-of-way, owners of other lots or blocks bordering strip in question were not indispensable parties. Alston v. Clinton, 1963-NMSC-227, 73 N.M. 341, 388 P.2d 64. Insurance agency partner was not an indispensable party in an action brought against other agency partners, because it is permissible in all cases of joint obligations by partners to bring and to prosecute suit against any one or more of the individual partners, and the plaintiff was under no obligation to sue more than one of them. Gallegos v. Citizens Ins. Agency, 1989-NMSC-055, 108 N.M. 722, 779 P.2d 99. Partner without interest in suit not necessary party. - Partner who disclaimed any interest in automobile damaged in collision and admitted ownership in plaintiff, was no longer a necessary party to suit because he had no interest in outcome of the litigation. Sturgeon v. Clark, 1961-NMSC-125, 69 N.M. 132, 364 P.2d 757. Corporations not necessary to suit by individual. - Where plaintiff's claims were personal to her and did not involve injuries to corporations in which she had an interest, the corporations were not indispensable parties. Moody v. Stribling, 1999-NMCA-094, 127 N.M. 630, 985 P.2d 1210, cert. denied, 127 N.M. 389, 981 P.2d 1207. Corporation not necessary party to suit on partners' account. - Corporation running feed store was not necessary or indispensable party to suit filed by plaintiff on account for which plaintiff claimed partners who formerly operated feed store were alone liable. Anderson, Clayton & Co. v. Swallows, 1973-NMSC-007, 84 N.M. 486, 505 P.2d 431. Corporate owner not prejudiced by failure to join. - Defendants cannot prevail on their indispensable-party claim because they have not shown any prejudice to corporate owner resulting from failure to join company as a party at trial. Additionally, 100% of the fault has been apportioned among other parties without joining the corporation. Reichert v. Atler, 1992-NMCA-134, 117 N.M. 628, 875 P.2d 384, aff'd, 1994-NMSC-056, 117 N.M. 623, 875 P.2d 379. Receiver not indispensable where agent, not company, liable. - Where liability for return of unearned premium due local insurance agent rested upon general insurance agent and not insurance company, company's receiver was not indispensable party to action. Insurance, Inc. v. Furneaux, 1957-NMSC-023, 62 N.M. 249, 308 P.2d 577. Minor decedent's father not necessary to suit over insurance proceeds. - In action brought by administratrix, mother of minor decedent, against decedent's employer to determine rights to proceeds of group life insurance policy, where statutory beneficiary of policy was decedent's estate, proceeds were properly payable to administratrix, regardless of absence of decedent's father from the action; father was not an indispensable party, and his claim to the proceeds or any portion thereof was properly determinable by court having jurisdiction of the estate. Bauer v. Bates Lumber Co., 1972-NMCA-149, 84 N.M. 391, 503 P.2d 1169, cert. denied, 84 N.M. 390, 503 P.2d 1168. Insured not indispensable to insurer's subrogation suit. - Where plaintiff insurer indemnified and paid insured liquor wholesaler in full settlement and satisfaction of all liability for misappropriation under bond on behalf of insured's employee (defendant), wholesaler was not indispensable party to litigation since he had no interest which could be affected by judgment between parties; plaintiff, owner of right sought to be enforced, was real party in interest. American Gen. Cos. v. Jaramillo, 1975-NMCA-092, 88 N.M. 182, 538 P.2d 1204. Workmen's compensation insurer who had paid compensation was not indispensable party in workman's action against third party. Springer Corp. v. Herrera, 1973-NMSC-057, 85 N.M. 201, 510 P.2d 1072. Retirement board held not indispensable party in workers' compensation action. - Public employees' retirement board was not an indispensable or necessary party in a workers' compensation action, where the board computed and voluntarily authorized the payment of disability benefits to the claimant, and the trial court neither directed nor ordered the board to refrain from or take any action, nor did the court interpret or construe the Public Employees' Retirement Act. Montney v. State ex rel. State Hwy. Dep't, 1989-NMCA-002, 108 N.M. 326, 772 P.2d 360. Former husband not indispensable in dispute over another's child. - Where decree in divorce case to which husband was a party found that no children were born of the union, thereby determining that husband was not the father of child whose custody was subject of custody action, father was not a necessary and indispensable party to that action. Torres v. Gonzales, 1969-NMSC-020, 80 N.M. 35, 450 P.2d 921. Guardians appointed for a child pursuant to the Kinship Guardianship Act are not necessary and indispensable parties to proceedings pursuant to the Abuse and Neglect Act, although kinship guardians have a statutory right to a revocation hearing in accordance with the revocation procedures of the Kinship Guardianship Act, 40-10B-1 NMSA 1978 et seq., prior to being involuntarily dismissed from abuse and neglect proceedings. State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Djamila B., 2015-NMSC-003. Persons with ministerial duties in paying judgment are not indispensable parties, although they may be proper parties. State ex rel. State Hwy. Comm'n v. Quesenberry, 1964-NMSC-043, 74 N.M. 30, 390 P.2d 273. Commissioner of Public Lands was not indispensable party in dispute between private parties concerning assignment of interest in land purchased from state under deferred payment contract. Ballard v. Echols, 1970-NMSC-066, 81 N.M. 564, 469 P.2d 713. Applicants not indispensable to compel application disclosure. - Applicants for the position of city planner were not indispensable parties to a newspaper's mandamus action to compel the city to disclose all applications, resumes and references received for the position, where it was not shown that the applicants either had or claimed any right of privacy or how joinder of the applicants was needed for a just adjudication of the petition for writ of mandamus. State ex rel. Blanchard v. City Comm'rs, 1988-NMCA-008, 106 N.M. 769, 750 P.2d 469. Where no public issues involved. - Cross complaint of lessee of state land for trespass did not require presence of land commissioner as an indispensable party, where no issues relating to public policy or enforcement of state lease were involved. Sproles v. McDonald, 1962-NMSC-071, 70 N.M. 168, 372 P.2d 122. State not necessary party. - In action against former labor commissioner to prevent enforcement of allegedly illegal order by him in his official capacity, state was not a necessary party. City of Albuquerque v. Burrell, 1958-NMSC-070, 64 N.M. 204, 326 P.2d 1088. State not indispensable party where subrogation right for medical payments not affected. - Where the trial court concluded that the defendants sustained no substantial risk of double or multiple liability and limited its decree in such a way so as not to affect the state's right of subrogation under 27-2-23 NMSA 1978, it was not error for the court to refuse to dismiss the complaint for failure to join the state as an indispensable party under this rule. Methola v. County of Eddy, 1981-NMCA-048, 96 N.M. 274, 629 P.2d 350. Personnel board in appeal from administrative determination of state employee employment status. - The state personnel board is not an indispensable party to an appeal from a final order making an administrative determination as to the employment status of a state employee. Montoya v. Department of Fin. & Admin., 1982-NMCA-051, 98 N.M. 408, 649 P.2d 476. Commissioner of Public Lands was not an indispensable party to an action involving the partition of state grazing leases. Sims v. Sims, 1996-NMSC-078, 122 N.M. 618, 930 P.2d 153. Law reviews. - For article, "The `New Rules' in New Mexico," see 1 Nat. Resources J. 96 (1961). For comment on Sellman v. Haddock, 62 N.M. 391, 310 P.2d 1045 (1957), see 1 N.M.L. Rev. 375 (1971). For article, "The Writ of Prohibition in New Mexico," see 5 N.M.L. Rev. 91 (1974). For article, "Statutory Adoption of Several Liability in New Mexico: A Commentary and Quasi-Legislative History," see 18 N.M.L. Rev. 483 (1988). For case note, "CIVIL PROCEDURE - New Mexico Adopts the Modern View of Collateral Estoppel: Silva v. State," see 18 N.M.L. Rev. 597 (1988). For survey of 1990-91 appellate procedure, see 22 N.M.L. Rev. 623 (1992). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 8 Am. Jur. 2d Automobiles and Highway Traffic §1105, 1107 to 1109; 14 Am. Jur. 2d Carriers §1135; 59 Am. Jur. 2d Parties §§92 et seq., 236. Necessity of serving process upon correspondent in divorce suit, 1 A.L.R. 1414. Joinder in action by or against cotenant for wrongful removal of timber, 2 A.L.R. 1001, 41 A.L.R. 582. Right to costs in both actions where parties who might have been sued jointly are sued separately, 6 A.L.R. 623. Necessity of joining tenant as party to make foreclosure terminate lease, 14 A.L.R. 664. Corporation as necessary party in specific performance of contract for sale of corporate stock, 22 A.L.R. 1072, 130 A.L.R. 920. Joinder of cotenants in action for rents and profits or use and occupation against cotenant in possession, 27 A.L.R. 245, 51 A.L.R.2d 388. Receiver for corporation as necessary party dependent in stockholder's action for protection of himself and other stockholders, 29 A.L.R. 1506. May acts of independent tort-feasors, each of which alone causes or tends to produce some damage, be combined to create a joint liability, 35 A.L.R. 409, 91 A.L.R. 759. Parties defendant in action to foreclose vendor's lien after vendee's death, 35 A.L.R. 935. Grantee of property as necessary party defendant in action against mortgagor on note secured by mortgage, 41 A.L.R. 323. Joinder, in one action at law, of persons not jointly liable, one or other of whom is liable to plaintiff, 41 A.L.R. 1223. Necessary parties in reformation of contract or instrument as against third persons, 44 A.L.R. 119, 79 A.L.R.2d 1180. Abatement by pendency of another action as affected by addition or omission of parties defendant in second suit, 44 A.L.R. 806. Dissolution or combination of municipality with another municipal body as affecting proper party defendant to action by creditor of dissolved corporation to enforce payment, 47 A.L.R. 145. Parties plaintiff to actions based on libel or slander of a firm or its members, 52 A.L.R. 912. Directors as necessary parties to action to compel payment of dividends, 55 A.L.R. 141, 76 A.L.R. 885, 109 A.L.R. 1381. Necessity in action by creditor against estate of deceased partner of joining surviving partners, 61 A.L.R. 1418. Joinder of parties under statutes as to survival of liability on joint obligation, 67 A.L.R. 637. Conflict of laws as to joinder of defendants, or as to the character of liability as joint or several, or joint and several, 77 A.L.R. 1108. Right of one brought into action as a party by original defendant upon ground that he is or may be liable to latter in respect of matter in suit, to raise or contest issues with plaintiff, 78 A.L.R. 327. Right of defendant in action for personal injury or death to bring in joint tort-feasor not made a party by plaintiff, 78 A.L.R. 580, 132 A.L.R. 1424. Statutory or contractual provision giving injured or damaged person right of action against liability insurer as affecting his right to joint insurer and insured as defendants, 85 A.L.R. 41, 106 A.L.R. 516. Parties defendant in action for declaratory judgment, 87 A.L.R. 1244. Necessary parties defendant in actions on contracts of reciprocal insurance association, 94 A.L.R. 854, 141 A.L.R. 765, 145 A.L.R. 1121. Joinder as parties defendant in action for refusal of depositary to deliver notwithstanding performance of conditions of delivery of depositary and other party to escrow agreement, 95 A.L.R. 298. Action by insured and insurer jointly against third person causing injury to insured property where insurer is entitled to subrogation to extent of loss paid by it, 96 A.L.R. 879, 157 A.L.R. 1242. Parties defendant in proceedings to purge voter's registration lists, 96 A.L.R. 1047. Necessity of making obligee party to action on bond of contractor for public work by laborer, materialman or subcontractor, 96 A.L.R. 1185. Water user as necessary or proper party to litigation involving right of ditch or canal company or irrigation or drainage district from which he takes water, 100 A.L.R. 561. Joinder in one action of sureties on different bonds relating to same matter, 106 A.L.R. 90, 137 A.L.R. 1044. Concerted action or agreement to resist enforcement of statute because of doubt as to its constitutionality or construction, as ground for joinder of defendants in action by governmental authorities, 107 A.L.R. 670. Joinder of parties in suit under Declaratory Judgments Act, 110 A.L.R. 817. Necessary and proper parties to declaratory judgment proceeding to determine validity of statute or ordinance, 114 A.L.R. 1366. Joinder of undisclosed principal and agent in same action, 118 A.L.R. 701. Joinder of owners of separate parcels in suit to quiet, or to remove cloud on title or to determine adverse claims to land, 118 A.L.R. 1400. Joinder of manufacturer or packer and retailer or other middleman as defendants in action for injury to person or damage to property of purchaser or consumer of defective article, 119 A.L.R. 1356. Necessity that living parties of the same class as unborn contingent remaindermen be parties to give court jurisdiction under doctrine of representation in respect of interest, 120 A.L.R. 876. Nonresident's duty to furnish security for costs as affected by joinder or addition of resident, 158 A.L.R. 737. Defendant's right to bring in third person asserted to be solely liable to plaintiff, 160 A.L.R. 600. Joinder of lessor and lessee as defendants in action for damages resulting from lessee's sale of intoxicating liquor, 169 A.L.R. 1203. Dissolved corporation as indispensable party to stockholders' derivative action, 172 A.L.R. 691. Joinder as defendants in tort action based on condition of sidewalk or highway of municipal corporation and abutting property owner or occupant, 15 A.L.R.2d 1293. Appeal from order with respect to motion for joinder of parties, 16 A.L.R.2d 1023. Joinder of insurer and insured under policy of compulsory indemnity or liability insurance in action by injured third person, 20 A.L.R.2d 1097. Joinder of several persons in action for slander, 26 A.L.R.2d 1031. Joinder, in injunction action to restrain or abate nuisance, of persons contributing thereto through separate and independent acts, 45 A.L.R.2d 1284. Joinder in tort action based on respondeat superior, 59 A.L.R.2d 1066. Declaratory Judgments Act, construction, application and effect of §11 that all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration shall be made parties, 71 A.L.R.2d 723. Statute permitting commencement of new action within specified time after failure of prior action not on merits, applicability, or affected by change in parties, 13 A.L.R.3d 848. Third person as proper party defendant to suit for divorce which involves property rights, 63 A.L.R.3d 373. Modern status of the Massachusetts or business trust, 88 A.L.R.3d 704. Illegality as basis for denying remedy of specific performance for breach of contract, 58 A.L.R.5th 387. 67A C.J.S. Parties §§ 33 to 55.