K.S.A. » Chapter 60

K.S.A. § 60-219

Required joinder of parties; feasibility

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

60-219. Required joinder of parties; feasibility. (a) Persons required to be joined if feasible. (1) Required party. A person who is subject to service of process must be joined as a party if:

(A) In that person's absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or

(B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence may:

(i) As a practical matter, impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest; or

(ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.

(2) Joinder by court order. If a person has not been joined as required, the court must order that the person be made a party. A person who refuses to join as a plaintiff may be made either a defendant or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff.

(3) Venue. If a joined party objects to venue and the joinder would make venue improper, the court must dismiss the party.

(b) When joinder is not feasible. If a person who is required to be joined if feasible cannot be joined, the court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed. The factors for the court to consider include:

(1) The extent to which a judgment rendered in the person's absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties;

(2) the extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by:

(A) Protective provisions in the judgment;

(B) shaping the relief; or

(C) other measures;

(3) whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence would be adequate; and

(4) whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder.

(c) Pleading the reasons for nonjoinder. When asserting a claim for relief, a party must state:

(1) The name, if known of any person who is required to be joined if feasible, but is not joined; and

(2) the reasons for not joining that person.

(d) Exception for class actions. This section is subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 60-223, and amendments thereto.

(e) Nominee. In an action in which any relief sought would determine title or affect a security interest in real property, a person who is subject to service of process must be joined as a party if the person is a nominee of record on behalf of a beneficial owner of a claimed interest in the property that is the subject of the action. The nominee need not be a party required to be joined under subsection (a)(1).

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-219; amended by Supreme Court order dated July 17, 1969; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 86; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 55 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: Gannon v. State
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gannon v. State (2016) kan · cites it 6× “" In a prior version of the compulsory joinder statute, a "contingently necessary" person was required to be joined as a party if complete relief could not be given in that person's absence.”
Continental Coal, Inc. v. Cunningham (2007) ksd · cites it 18× “Plaintiffs claim is baffling because plaintiff concedes that (1) it did not seek to intervene as a party to the Linn County lawsuit despite an opportunity to do so; (2) at a hearing in the Linn County lawsuit, Continental stated that it would oppose any effort by the Cunninghams…”
Landmark National Bank v. Kesler (2009) kan · cites it 4× “The motion asserted that MERS was a K.S.A. 60-219(a) contingently necessary party and, because Landmark failed to name MERS as a defendant, Sovereign did not receive notice of the proceedings.”
Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. v. Southwest Homes of Arkansas, Inc. (2009) ark · cites it 5× “Agreeing with MERS that a foreclosure judgment could be set aside for failure to join a "contingently necessary party," the Kansas court observed that a party was "contingently necessary" under K.S.A. 60-219 if "the party claims an interest in the property at issue and the party…”
Commerce Bank, N.A. v. Liebau-Woodall & Associates, L.P. (2001) kanctapp · cites it 6× “K.S.A. 60-219 establishes the parameters of compulsory joinder of parties.”
State Ex Rel. Graeber v. Marion County Landfill, Inc. (2003) kan · cites it 2× “In the County’s August 31, 2001, motion to join MSW, it argued that MSW was a contingently necessary party pursuant to K.S.A. 60-219 because the title to the real estate was subject to the litigation.”
Dugan v. First Nat'l Bank in Wichita (1980) kan · cites it 2× “See K.S.A. 60-219. The Bank, however, will be affected only tangentially in its position as designated mortgagee and escrow agent; it has no financial interest in the 1975 mortgage.”
Heinson v. Porter (1989) kan · cites it 2× “While K.S.A. 60-219 is silent on the parties necessary to such adjudications of rights, the statute provides that a “contingently necessary” person, if subject to service of process, “shall be joined in the action.”
Harms v. Burt (2002) kanctapp · cites it 2× “3d 1272 (2000) (adopting abuse of discretion standard for reviewing K.S.A. 60-219). We are reluctant to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the Harms’ motion to join, but neither are we able to agree with the panel in Bankers Trust that the…”
Murphy v. City of Topeka (1981) kanctapp “We find that the court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s action against DOLS. The comprehensive manpower program was jointly sponsored by the City of Topeka and Shawnee County even though it was solely administered by the City.”
Newell v. Krause (1986) kan · cites it 2× “is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: (1) Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person, (3) improper venue, (4) insufficiency of process, (5) insufficiency of service of…”
Siruta Ex Rel. Heirs at Law of Siruta v. Siruta (2015) kan “See K.S.A. 60-219 (regarding compulsory joinder of parties).”
Show all 55 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 60-219(a) — 20 cases
Landmark National Bank v. Kesler (2009) kan “The motion asserted that MERS was a K.S.A. 60-219(a) contingently necessary party and, because Landmark failed to name MERS as a defendant, Sovereign did not receive notice of the proceedings.”
Continental Coal, Inc. v. Cunningham (2007) ksd “Plaintiffs claim is baffling because plaintiff concedes that (1) it did not seek to intervene as a party to the Linn County lawsuit despite an opportunity to do so; (2) at a hearing in the Linn County lawsuit, Continental stated that it would oppose any effort by the Cunninghams…”
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Barabas (2011) indctapp
State Ex Rel. Graeber v. Marion County Landfill, Inc. (2003) kan “In the County’s August 31, 2001, motion to join MSW, it argued that MSW was a contingently necessary party pursuant to K.S.A. 60-219 because the title to the real estate was subject to the litigation.”
Harms v. Burt (2002) kanctapp “3d 1272 (2000) (adopting abuse of discretion standard for reviewing K.S.A. 60-219). We are reluctant to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the Harms’ motion to join, but neither are we able to agree with the panel in Bankers Trust that the…”
— K.S.A. § 60-219(a)(1) — 3 cases
Gannon v. State (2016) kan “" In a prior version of the compulsory joinder statute, a "contingently necessary" person was required to be joined as a party if complete relief could not be given in that person's absence.”
Dies v. McGinn (2024) kanctapp
In re Eugene Parks Wise Trust (2026) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-219(a)(1)(A) — 2 cases
Gannon v. State (2016) kan “" In a prior version of the compulsory joinder statute, a "contingently necessary" person was required to be joined as a party if complete relief could not be given in that person's absence.”
Dies v. McGinn (2024) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-219(a)(1)(B) — 1 case
Dies v. McGinn (2024) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-219(a)(1)(B)(i) — 1 case
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Luna (2021) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-219(a)(1)(B)(ii) — 1 case
Dies v. McGinn (2024) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-219(a)(2) — 1 case
In re Eugene Parks Wise Trust (2026) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-219(a)(2)(ii) — 1 case
McHorse v. Eaks (2000) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-219(a)(l) — 1 case
Gannon v. State (2016) kan “" In a prior version of the compulsory joinder statute, a "contingently necessary" person was required to be joined as a party if complete relief could not be given in that person's absence.”
— K.S.A. § 60-219(b) — 2 cases
Continental Coal, Inc. v. Cunningham (2007) ksd “Plaintiffs claim is baffling because plaintiff concedes that (1) it did not seek to intervene as a party to the Linn County lawsuit despite an opportunity to do so; (2) at a hearing in the Linn County lawsuit, Continental stated that it would oppose any effort by the Cunninghams…”
Commerce Bank, N.A. v. Liebau-Woodall & Associates, L.P. (2001) kanctapp “K.S.A. 60-219 establishes the parameters of compulsory joinder of parties.”
— K.S.A. § 60-219(c) — 1 case
Glenn v. Fleming (1987) kan
— K.S.A. § 60-219(o) — 1 case
Wells v. Davis (1979) kan
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.