Is supervisory control both necessary and appropriate in
the underlying case?
This Court has stated that supervisory control is appro-
priate where there are procedural entanglements that may
prolong the litigation and appeal is an inadequate remedy, or
where it is apparent from the record that relator will be
deprived of a fundamental right unless supervisory control is
granted. State v. District Court of Eighth Jud. Dist. (Mont.
1985), 703 P.2d 148, 153-54, 42 St.Rep. 1061, 1065-66. In
the underlying case, there have been many depositions taken
as well as interrogatories and other types of discovery. As
pointed out by the District Court and the Association, the
litigation has been dragging on and it is essential for the
protection of all parties that the litigation move forward as
rapidly as is reasonably possible. Yet Boyne1s claim is that
it is being denied its right to an attorney by being forced
to accept the Association as its representative.
We note that the complaint seeks to recover damages
suffered by the Association itself as well as damages which
can be classed as personal to the individual unit owners.
The Association's claims cover repair and replacement of the
common elements. The individual owners1 claims include
expenses of moving and storage of personal property, loss of
use, diminution in value of units, loss of rent, and claims
for breach of the covenant of good faith resulting in puni-
tive damages.
As pointed out by the parties, Rule 17(a), M.R.Civ.P.,
provides that every action shall be prosecuted in the name of
the real party in interest. In addition, that Rule provides
that a party authorized by statute may sue in his own name
without joining the party for whose benefit the action is
brought. The Association was formed under the Unit Ownership
Act, S § 70-23-101 to 70-23-1002, MCA. The Association in
acting as plaintiff relied upon S 70-23-901, MCA, which in
pertinent part provides: