not served .with notice of the divorce proceedings before the trial court impacted their businesses by granting Christina a security interest in Jeffs interests therein in the dissolution decree. We find nothing improper here. Typically, the only proper parties to a marital dissolution proceeding are the spouses. State ex rel. Stanton v. Superior Court of Lake County, 265 Ind. 414, 416, 355 N.E.2d 406, 407 (1976); Gaw v. Gaw, 822 N.E.2d 188, 191 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). If Jeff, as responding party (and shareholder or member of the Crider Entities), believed that the Crider Entities needed to be joined in the proceeding as indispensable parties under Indiana Trial Rule 19, it was incumbent upon Jeff to file a motion requesting joinder. See Dunson v. Dunson, 769 N.E.2d 1120, 1126 (Ind.2002) (<HOLDING>). And, the Crider Entities cite no authority
holding that a party does not automatically qualify as a real party in interest merely because it has been named as a defendant in a declaratory judgment action holding that party waived argument by failing to brief it on appeal holding that res judicata barred conspiracy claim against defendant even though defendant had not been a party to the prior action because the civil conspiracy claim should have been adjudicated in a prior action and defendant as an alleged participant in the conspiracy would have been indispensable party to that adjudication holding that failure to join necessary party was prejudicial holding father waived claim that alleged de facto custodian should have been named as party in child support proceeding by failing to move to join party or to dismiss for lack of an indispensable party