In Banks v. Banks, (Del. Ch., Jan. 2007), read opinion here, the Chancery Court denied a Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(7) and 19 (a)(1) for failure to join indispensable parties. The case involved the interpretation of a Settlement Agreement after a divorce and the later sale of property which, it was argued, was contrary to the agreement. The rejected argument was that certain beneficiaries to the estate of one of the parties to the agreement were required to be joined under Rule 19(a). The court determined that the duties of the Executor of the Estate made it unnecessary to join the beneficiaries as parties, also noting that they were given an opportunity to intervene in the case but decided against it.