Rule 19.Joinder of persons needed for just adjudication

Ch. IV: Parties · Last amended 2020 · Current through June 1, 2026 · Last verified September 9, 2026

In one sentenceRule 19 requires joining a person whose absence would prevent complete relief or prejudice their interest — and tells the court what to weigh when that person cannot be joined.

Full Text of Rule 19

Text sizeJump to: (a) (b) (c)

(a) Persons to be Joined if Feasible. A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the Court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if

(1) in that person's absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or

(2) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action, in the absence of that person may

(i) as a practical matter impair or impede that person's ability to protect that interest or

(ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest. If a person as described in subdivisions (a)(1)-(2) has not been so joined, the Court shall order joinder as a party. If that person should join as a petitioner but refuses to do so, that person may be made a respondent, or, in a proper case, an involuntary petitioner. If the joined party objects to venue and that joinder would render the venue of the action improper, that person shall be dismissed from the action.

(b) Determination by Court Whenever Joinder Not Feasible. If a person as described in subdivision (a)(1)-(2) hereof cannot be made party, the Court shall determine whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be dismissed, the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable. The factors to be considered by the Court include:

(1) to what extent a judgment rendered in the person's absence might be prejudicial to that person or those already parties;

(2) the extent to which, by protective provisions in the judgment, by the shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice can be lessened or avoided;

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

(4) whether the petitioner will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder.

(c) Pleading Reasons for Nonjoinder. A pleading asserting a claim for relief shall state the names, if known to the pleader, of any persons as described in subdivision (a)(1)-(2) hereof who are not joined, and the reasons why they are not joined.

End

Amendment History

Delaware prints each rule’s amendment history as a single “Credits” line naming every order that adopted or amended it. It is reproduced verbatim below.

[Amended effective September 1, 2020.]

Plain-English Summary

Who must be joined. A person subject to service whose joinder will not destroy subject-matter jurisdiction shall be joined if, in their absence, complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties; or if they claim an interest in the subject of the action and deciding it without them would, as a practical matter, impair their ability to protect that interest, or leave an existing party at substantial risk of double, multiple or inconsistent obligations.

Those two limbs are doing different work. The first is about whether the court can finish the job. The second is about everyone else — the absent person, and the parties who might otherwise be ordered twice to do inconsistent things.

When joinder is not feasible. The court decides in equity and good conscience whether to proceed without them or dismiss, weighing how far a judgment might prejudice the absentee or the existing parties; whether protective provisions, the shaping of relief or other measures could lessen or avoid that prejudice; whether a judgment given in their absence would be adequate; and the remaining factors the rule sets out.

Note what the rule does not do: it does not call anyone indispensable in the abstract. Whether a case can go on without a person is a judgement made on these facts, in this case.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who has to be a party to a Delaware Family Court case?

A person subject to service whose joinder would not destroy subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined if complete relief cannot otherwise be accorded, or if their absence would impair their own interest or expose an existing party to double or inconsistent obligations.

What if the person cannot be joined?

The court determines in equity and good conscience whether to proceed without them or dismiss, weighing prejudice, whether it can be lessened by shaping the relief, and whether a judgment in their absence would be adequate.

Source & verification. The rule text and amendment history are reproduced verbatim from the Delaware Family Court Rules of Civil Procedure (Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 19), and every rule has been checked word for word against the Delaware Family Court’s own published edition of these rules. Current through June 1, 2026. The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified September 9, 2026. · Official source

Also known as: necessary party Delaware Family Courtindispensable party DelawareFam. Ct. Civ. R. 19