Misjoinder of parties is not ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a party may be severed and proceeded with separately.
Rule 21.Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties
Last verified July 2, 2026
In one sentenceRule 21 makes clear that misjoinder of parties is never grounds for dismissing an action, letting the court add or drop parties, or sever a claim against any party, on motion or on its own initiative, at any stage of the case and on terms the court finds just.
Full Text of Rule 21
Advisory Commission Comments
Plain-English Summary
Rule 21 answers a question that could once sink an otherwise sound lawsuit: what happens when the wrong parties end up in the same case? Under the rule, misjoinder — joining a party who should not have been joined — is never a ground for dismissing the action outright. Nonjoinder, leaving out a party who should have been included, gets the same forgiving treatment.
Instead of dismissal, the court can add or drop parties by order, on motion by any party or on its own initiative, at any stage of the case and on whatever terms are just. The court can also sever any claim against a party and let it proceed separately, which is a different and more consequential step than merely ordering separate trials under Rule 42: a severed claim becomes its own independently appealable action, while claims that are merely tried separately remain parts of the same case.
Rule 21 works alongside more specific rules that govern particular kinds of party problems — Rule 17 on the real party in interest, Rule 19 on compulsory joinder, and Rule 25 on substitution after death or a transfer of interest. A court adding a party under Rule 21 still has to serve that party with process before it can exercise authority over them; naming someone in an order is not, by itself, enough to bring them into the case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a lawsuit be dismissed because the wrong parties were joined?
No. Rule 21 provides that misjoinder of parties is never a ground for dismissing an action. The court instead has the power to add or drop parties, or sever claims, to fix the problem.
What is the difference between severing a claim and ordering separate trials?
Severing a claim under Rule 21 creates an independently appealable, separate action. Ordering separate trials under Rule 42 keeps the claims within the same case; they are tried one after another rather than together.
If a court adds a party on its own initiative, does that party automatically become part of the case?
Not immediately. The added party still has to be served with process before the court has authority over them. Naming a party in an order under Rule 21 is not, by itself, enough to bring that party into the case.
Source & verification. The rule text and Advisory Commission Comments are reproduced verbatim from the
official Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure (Tenn. R. Civ. P. 21). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 16-3-402 to 16-3-407, 16-3-601). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 2, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: misjoindernonjoinderadding or dropping partiesseverance of claims
Advisory Commission Comments.
Rule 21 allows misjoinder and nonjoinder to be corrected at any stage of the action upon motion of any party or upon the initiative of the court, and removes misjoinder as a ground for dismissal of an action.