I need help with this question below. I do not have the answer from the prof. _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _George and Laura have joint ownership of a house in Texas. Laura's daughter, Jenna, by a previous marriage, moved into the house after George and Laura moved to Washington. George has filed suit to evict Jenna and for $100,000 in back rent. Jenna has filed a counterclaim alleging that she now has sole ownership of the house because Laura secretly gave her a deed. George moves to dismiss Jenna's counterclaim for failure to join a FRCP Rule 19 (necessary & indispensable) party, Laura. George is now a citizen of Washington and Jenna and Laura are citizens of Texas. The case has been filed in federal court, based solely on diversity.A. The judge will dismiss the suit because you should never sue your mother.B. Laura can be joined because this is a cross-claim and is a claim by a party not arising out of the same transaction or occurrence.C. Laura need not be joined.D. Laura cannot be joined because it would destroy diversity and thus the counterclaim must be dismissed.E. Although Laura should be joined, she is only a necessary, not an indispensable party._____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _I thought the answer should be D, but at the time the suit was filed, it would not destroy diversity and I thought that's when diversity counts, not after the filing. So I'm not sure if the sentence "George is now a citizen of Washington and Jenna and Laura are citizens of Texas" is to throw me off or the prof messed up and should have put that before the filing. I also thought Laura should be joined because she's co-owner but I'm not sure. Any help and explanation is appreciated.
I will guess that since Texas is a community property state, and the property was co-owned by the husband and wife, (assuming that the wife did not have POA and the property was not partitioned) the wife did not have the right to convey the property without agreement of the husband? Therefore, without the husband's signature, the property is still legally owned by both George and Laura, and Laura should be joined.
Thanks everyone for your help and analysis.Just so I am understanding the very specific part about the filing...Diversity only counts at the time of filing right? Because before the suit of 100k and counterclaim, Laura was in Wa. and Jenna was in Texas. There would still be valid diversity. Then afterwards, George moves to dismiss because of Rule 19, and then it states Laura and Jenna were both in Texas. So, it could not be D because we are only looking at the time when Laura was in Wa. and Jenna was in Texas, NOT when Laura and Jenna were both in Texas.Did I get this reasoning correct?
Quote from: Wild Jack Maverick on November 23, 2005, 08:08:09 PMI will guess that since Texas is a community property state, and the property was co-owned by the husband and wife, (assuming that the wife did not have POA and the property was not partitioned) the wife did not have the right to convey the property without agreement of the husband? Therefore, without the husband's signature, the property is still legally owned by both George and Laura, and Laura should be joined.I was thinking about the importance of that fact. If this is a civ pro question I don't know why it's in there because it requires an analysis of property law.Notwithstanding the obvious references in the fact pattern, it doesn't say anywhere in the hypo that they are married, it just says joint owners.
Anyway, that wasn't my point.All I'm saying is that it's a civ pro question and shouldn't require analysis of different types of property arrangements, especially if the OP doesn't go to law school in Texas. How would he know that Texas is a community property state?