Which of the following is an example of an indispensable party?

An indispensable party is defined as a party that has such an interest in the controversy that a final decision cannot be made without affecting that party's rights or leaving the court unable to grant complete relief. The correct answer highlights a party whose interests are directly affected by the outcome of the litigation. For instance, if the lawsuit involves partitioning property, any co-owners of that property would be considered indispensable parties, as their interests would be directly impacted by the court's ruling.

In contrast, the other options do not meet the criteria for being an indispensable party. A party who agrees to the joinder typically signifies that they are not necessary for the resolution of the case; their consent suggests that their interests can be adequately represented or resolved without them being in the lawsuit. Similarly, a party without any financial stake in the lawsuit does not have an interest that would significantly affect the outcome of the case, which disqualifies them from being considered indispensable. Lastly, a party that does not reside in the jurisdiction is relevant for establishing personal jurisdiction and venue but does not inherently render that party indispensable to the legal proceedings, as it is possible for a court to proceed without them if their interests are not directly affected or can be represented by other existing parties.