Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 39(a) requires joinder of person who is subject to service as a party to the suit if that person’s absence would prevent complete relief or that person claims an interest in the litigation. Failure to join necessary parties can result in abatement and even dismissal. But what if non-parties have not asserted claims? Are they still necessary?
The answer is “no.” Crawford v. XTO Energy, Inc. (No. 15-0142) 60 Tex. S.Ct. J. 391 (Feb 3, 2017).
In Crawford a landowner claimed that XTO Energy was wrongfully paying 44 of his neighbors royalties on mineral interests he owned. After he sued, XTO moved to abate the case and compel joinder of the 44 adjacent homeowners under Rule 39(a). The trial court ordered Crawford to join the landowners or face dismissal. When Crawford failed to join his neighbors, the trial court dismissed the suit.
The court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that because the adjacent homeowners had a pecuniary interest in the outcome, they were necessary parties whose joinder was required to afford complete relief and avoid inconsistent obligations.
The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the adjacent homeowners were not necessary parties under Rule 39(a) because none of them ever claimed any interest in the minerals in dispute. The court ruled that a hypothetical claim was not an actual “claim” under Rule 39. Even the fact that XTO had been sending royalty payments to them was insufficient to create a “claim” to ownership of the mineral interests when no homeowner had asserted any such claim. The fact that XTO might face separate lawsuits from the homeowners whose royalties were reduced if Crawford prevailed also failed to dissuade the court from its reading that a “claim” required active assertion by a party.
An unasserted claim is not an actual claim: “Rule 39 does not require joinder of persons who potentially could claim an interest in the subject of the action; it requires joinder, in certain circumstances, of persons who actually claim such an interest.”
