After Harry N. Gold died, his mortgage went unpaid and his lender filed a foreclosure proceeding against his estate.
When a court-appointed referee determined that $334,393.01 was due and payable, Gold's son made a motion to dismiss the case claiming that the lender failed to name and join, as a "necessary party" to the suit, Lorraine Bowen (one of Gold's daughters).
Since Gold's widow, as the estate's administrator, was named and joined as a party to the dispute, and was the only "necessary party" to the case, the Suffolk County Supreme Court denied the motion.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, noted that, "Even if Lorraine Bowen were a necessary party, she was not an indispensable party whose absence mandates dismissal of the complaint. The absence of a necessary party in a mortgage foreclosure action simply leaves that party's rights unaffected by the judgment of the foreclosure and sale."
In other words, should she be so inclined, Bowen could seek to set aside the judgment and sale.
Was that extra step really necessary?
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Glass v. Estate of Henry N. Gold