## Facts

- On November 17, 1983, Martha J. McCoy executed a power of attorney authorizing Dr. Jerry L. Like to act for her.
- That same day, McCoy entered an agreement to sell a 120-acre tract of land to Like.
- Less than a month later, McCoy and Like agreed to substantially reduce the land’s purchase price.
- McCoy died on July 11, 1985.
- Under McCoy’s will, Like was appointed personal representative of her estate.
- Four beneficiaries under the will filed a will contest.
- The original defendants included the other heirs and beneficiaries and Like in his capacity as personal representative.
- After taking Like’s deposition, the beneficiaries filed an amended complaint adding Like as a defendant in his individual capacity.
- The amended complaint also added claims for undue influence, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty tied to Like’s dealings with McCoy, including the land transaction.
- The trial court dismissed Like as an individual defendant and dismissed the added claims that were not part of the will contest.
- The beneficiaries appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the beneficiary plaintiffs could join, in the same action as the will contest, additional claims for undue influence, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty against Like individually under Indiana Trial Rule 20(A).
2. If any joinder was improper, whether the trial court could dismiss the added defendant and claims, or instead was limited to remedies such as dropping parties or severing claims under Indiana Trial Rule 21(A).

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed and remanded.
- The court held that the joinder of Like (individually) and the additional claims was permissible under Trial Rule 20(A).
- The court further held that, even if there had been misjoinder, dismissal was not an available remedy because Trial Rule 21(A) states misjoinder is not a ground for dismissal; the proper tools are dropping parties or severing claims.

## Legal Principles

- Indiana Trial Rule 20(A) allows permissive joinder when claims arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and there is at least one common question of law or fact.
- Indiana courts read Trial Rule 20(A) broadly, with concerns about confusion or prejudice generally addressed through case-management tools such as separate trials or severance rather than dismissal.
- Under Indiana Trial Rule 21(A), misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissal of an action.
- When joinder is improper, the trial court may drop a party or sever claims so they proceed separately; dismissal is the wrong procedural response to misjoinder.
- A trial court abuses its discretion when it grants dismissal on a misjoinder theory instead of using Trial Rule 21(A) remedies.

## Conclusion

McCoy v. Like holds that beneficiaries contesting a will could, under Indiana’s permissive joinder rules, add related claims against the personal representative in his individual capacity when those claims stemmed from the same series of dealings with the decedent, including a land transaction conducted while he held power of attorney. Even assuming any joinder defect, the trial court could not resolve it by dismissal; Trial Rule 21(A) requires the court to address misjoinder by dropping parties or severing claims, so the dismissal was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.


McCoy v. Like, 511 N.E.2d 501 (1987)