2016-00197339-CU-FR

Faron Carroll vs. Earl Boyce

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Join Earl Boyce as Plaintiff

Filed By: Walker, Thomas D.

Defendant Earl Boyce’s Motion to Join Earl Boyce as Plaintiff is denied.

Plaintiffs are Loretta Boyce’s adult sons. Loretta was married to Defendant Earl Boyce (“Defendant”) in or about 1993 and they remained married until her death. Plaintiffs allege that Boyce used intimidation to control Loretta’s actions and decisions and that from approximately 2005, due to her visual impairment, metal condition, and Defendant’s intimidation, Loretta relied on Defendant to manage her income, investments, assets and payment of expenses. Plaintiffs believe, and have alleged in their complaint, that Defendant wrongfully used Loretta’s
disability, reliance on him, intimidation, and deceit to gain control of certain separate property assets belonging to Loretta. Plaintiffs allege that Earl Boyce engaged in financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult with regard to their mother in violation of relevant provisions of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Plaintiffs allege that they are the successors in interest to Loretta and are bringing this action to pursue their rights as her successors as both intestate heirs and named beneficiaries.

Defendant contends in this motion that he is also an intestate heir to Loretta and that he must therefore be included as a plaintiff in this elder abuse case under the compulsory joinder statutes. The complaint in this action was filed on July 17, 2016. Defendant’s cross-complaint was filed on September 29, 2016.

The trial date is scheduled for June 19, 2018.

The operative statute regarding mandatory joinder is Code of Civil Procedure § 389 which reads in part “[a] person … shall be joined as a party if 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… impair or impede his ability to protect that interest.” (emphasis added). The purpose of joinder is to avoid piecemeal litigation and multiplicity of suits by compelling or permitting joinder of those persons needed for a complete settlement of a controversy. Bank of California v. Superior Court (1940) 16 Cal. App.2d 516, 520. In other words, the purpose of joinder is to bring necessary third parties into the suit so that all of the issues and claims in controversy can be completely litigated. In the case at hand, Defendant is already a party to the suit and the court has the inherent authority to thoroughly adjudicate his claims and interests in the property in dispute. There is no authority provided to add a defendant as a plaintiff in an action alleging that the defendant committed elder abuse against the decedent.