TULSA INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY v. CITY OF TULSA
2014 OK 81
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Bundren, a taxpayer, sought equitable relief challenging bond-financed obligations in a second appeal.
- Trial court required Bondholders to be joined as necessary parties under 12 O.S.2011 §2019; Taxpayer was warned to amend and notify Bondholders.
- Taxpayer filed an amended petition but failed to provide notice to Bondholders as ordered.
- Trial court dismissed the petition with prejudice for noncompliance with joinder and notice requirements.
- This Court retained the matter and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice.
- The prior 2011 decision did not resolve the bondholder-joinder issue and did not bind this case to a different outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are bondholders necessary parties under §2019 to this equitable action? | Bundren contends bondholders need not be joined. | TIA and City argue bondholders must be joined to prevent inconsistent obligations. | Bondholders may be necessary parties under §2019; absence may create prejudice. |
| Was Taxpayer required to notify or join Bondholders to proceed? | Bundren argues no adequate notice requirement was imposed. | TIA/City argue notice/joining Bondholders was mandatory. | Taxpayer must join and provide notice; failure supports dismissal. |
| Did the record support dismissal with prejudice for repeated amendment failures? | Bundren asserts insufficient basis for prejudice. | Defendants contend repeated failures to cure justify prejudice. | Dismissal with prejudice upheld given repeated noncompliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gillespie v. Frisbie, 148 P. 991 (Okla. 1915) (bondholders not always necessary parties; general rule varies with context)
- Hollingsworth v. City of Guthrie, 245 P.2d 1159 (Okla. 1952) (equitable relief considerations and joinder principles for equity cases)
- Clinton v. Miller, 216 P.135 (Okla. 1923) (allegations must show equity may remedy wrong; nonjoinder analysis guided by equity)
- Prough v. Edinger, 862 P.2d 71 (Okla. 1993) (record and applicable law required to show trial court error; nonjoinder context)
- Kersh Lake Drainage Dist. v. Johnson, 309 U.S. 485 (U.S. 1940) (indenture trustees may represent bondholders; bondholders not always indispensable)