What is the test for determining whether a party is an indispensible party in a mortgage action?

"'"The controlling test for determining whether a person is an indispensible party is, 'Where the plaintiff seeks some type of affirmative relief which, if granted, would injure or affect the interest of a third person not joined, that third person is an indispensible party. [Citation.]' [Citation.] More recently, the same rule is stated, 'A person is an indispensible party if his or her rights must necessarily be affected by the judgment.'"'" (Majd v. Bank of America, N.A. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1309 (Majd).)

Plaintiff does not dispute his wife was an indispensible party in his action challenging the foreclosure of their mortgage. She was jointly liable for the loan, and without her named in the lawsuit, the trial court was unable to grant complete relief to plaintiff to stave off foreclosure. The outcome of the lawsuit also would undoubtedly affect her, but she would be unable to protect her interests or assert any claims or defenses. Defendants could also face multiple lawsuits and potentially conflicting rulings over the same foreclosure issues. The trial court was correct that plaintiff's filing of a power of attorney was insufficient to solve the joinder issue because he could not represent her as a nonattorney. (Drake v. Superior Court (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1826, 1832.)

Page 5