Weilbacher v. Ring, 296 P.3d 32

Weilbacher owned three guide lots (71, 72, 74) with designated tie-up spaces; tie-up 26 was the river-front slot Weilbacher wanted to keep when selling Lot 71.
Weilbacher sold Lot 71 to Ring/Henrys and Lot 72 to Berube; escrow instructions specified tie-ups (27 and 48 for Lot 71; 79 and 48 for Lot 72).
Weilbacher later swapped tie-ups (26, 27, 47, 48, 79) through various actions, but association records did not reflect all changes.
Disputes arose over who held tie-up 26 (Lot 71) and whether tie-up 27 (Lot 72) should be allocated to Ring/Henrys; board meetings in 2006 reaffirmed Tie-up 26 to Lot 71.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the association, ordered Berube joined as indispensable, and ultimately dismissed Weilbacher for noncompliance; trial on merits led to judgment for defendants and enhanced attorney’s fees for Ring/Henrys.
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal and the enhanced attorney’s fees, emphasizing Weilbacher’s noncompliance with the joinder order and the necessity of Berube’s presence to enforce the parties’ intent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Berube was an indispensable party under Rule 19	Weilbacher contends Berube not indispensable once contract voided	Berube necessary to enforce all parties’ intent and three-way swap	Berube indispensable; action dismissed for nonjoinder
Whether Weilbacher was entitled to rescission	Rescission appropriate due to mutual mistake and invalid contract	No rescission; relief available through enforceable contract intent	Not entitled to rescission; contract enforcement refused due to joinder failure
Whether the trial court erred by relying on una admitted evidence and by granting enhanced fees	Evidentiary error prejudiced Weilbacher; enhanced fees improper	Curom live evidence appropriately considered; enhanced fees warranted for noncompliance	Evidentiary error harmless; enhanced fees affirmed for noncompliance
Whether joinder order was proper and removal of Berube could justify dismissal	Rule 19 joinder improperly compelled Berube’s participation	Joinder necessary to enforce contract terms	Joinder proper; dismissal appropriate for noncompliance

Johnson v. Johnson, 239 P.3d 393 (Alaska 2010) (Rule 19 and indispensable-party considerations in Alaska)
Watson Bros. Transp. Co. v. Jaffa, 143 F.2d 341 (8th Cir. 1944) (Absence of absentee party can prevent enforcement of contract intents)
Bennett v. Weimar, 975 P.2d 691 (Alaska 1999) (Fiduciary duties of association board; reasonableness of approvals)
Dunlap v. Bavarian Vill. Condo. Ass’n, 780 P.2d 1012 (Alaska 1989) (Arbitrary enforcement of association rules reviewed)
Inman v. Clyde Hall Drilling Co., 369 P.2d 498 (Alaska 1962) (Judicial policy to enforce agreed contractual obligations when permissible)
Rash v. United States, 360 F.2d 940 (Ct. Cl. 1966) (Remedies via reformation when contract expresses true intent)
Simonds Chevrolet v. Gen. Motors, 564 F. Supp. 151 (D. Mass. 1983) (Reasonableness of withholdings in transfer approvals)