Accetta v. Brooks Towers Residences Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 2019 CO 11

Plaintiff Anthony Accetta owns a unit in Brooks Tower, a common-interest community with ~566 residential units plus commercial and garage units, governed by a Declaration.
The Declaration assigns each unit a "value" for allocating common-interest percentage and dues; the value is set in the Declarant’s "sole and arbitrary discretion" and is "final and conclusive."
Accetta alleges his unit was assigned a disproportionately high value (and thus higher dues) and seeks a declaratory judgment that the Declarant-discretion allocation provision violates CCIOA and is therefore invalid; he also asserts related damage claims for overcharged fees.
The Association moved to dismiss for failure to join indispensable parties, arguing all Brooks Tower unit owners must be joined because a declaratory judgment could affect their interests; the trial court agreed and ordered joinder.
Accetta petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court under C.A.R. 21; the Supreme Court granted review to decide whether joinder of the ~500 absent unit owners was required.
The Supreme Court held the Association can adequately represent the absent owners concerning Accetta’s declaratory judgment claim and therefore joinder of the individual unit owners is not required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether all unit owners are indispensable parties to a declaratory judgment challenging the Declaration’s allocation provision	Accetta: joinder of hundreds of owners is unnecessary because the Association can be sued alone and he seeks only a declaratory ruling that the provision violates CCIOA	Association: absent owners have interests that would be affected by a declaration; C.R.C.P. 19(a), 57(j), and §13-51-115 require joinder	The Court: joinder not required because the Association can adequately represent absent owners’ interests for the declaratory judgment claim
Whether seeking reformation or other relief makes joinder necessary	Accetta: he seeks a declaration that the provision is invalid under CCIOA (not judicially redrafting the Declaration), so joinder still not required	Association: Accetta’s request for reformation would affect absent owners and thus requires their joinder	The Court: Accetta’s requested relief is declaratory (voiding the provision); because the Association defends the provision and statutes authorize it to litigate for members, joinder is unnecessary

Kowalchik v. Brohl, 411 P.3d 681 (Colo. App.) (joinder analysis considers whether absent parties’ interests are adequately represented)
Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v. Bulen, 429 F.3d 493 (4th Cir.) (joinder not required where present parties can represent absent parties’ interests)
Hooper v. Wolfe, 396 F.3d 744 (6th Cir.) (prejudice analysis includes adequacy of representation by existing parties)
Shermoen v. United States, 982 F.2d 1312 (9th Cir.) (factors for adequacy of representation include alignment and willingness to assert absent party’s arguments)
Clubhouse at Fairway Pines, L.L.C. v. Fairway Pines Estates Owners Ass’n, 214 P.3d 451 (Colo. App.) (joinder may be required when association cannot adequately represent absent owners)