Case Name: Virgil PEARMAN and Wilma Pearman, his wife, Movants, v. Virginia SCHLAAK et al., Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Kentucky
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1978-11-21
Citations: 575 S.W.2d 462
Docket Number: 
Parties: Virgil PEARMAN and Wilma Pearman, his wife, Movants, v. Virginia SCHLAAK et al., Respondents.
Judges: PALMORE, C. J., and STEPHENSON and STERNBERG, JJ., concur.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 575
Pages: 462–466

Head Matter:
Virgil PEARMAN and Wilma Pearman, his wife, Movants, v. Virginia SCHLAAK et al., Respondents.
Supreme Court of Kentucky.
Nov. 21, 1978.
D. Michael Coyle, Huddleston, Van Zant & Coyle, Elizabethtown, for movants.
Nicholas L. Pearl, Pearl, Pearl & Pearl, Radcliff, for respondents.

Opinion:
JONES, Justice.
This is a discretionary review of a decision of the Court of Appeals reversing a judgment of the Hardin Circuit Court which denied Virginia Schlaak, et al, the right to intervene nine days after judgment was entered in an action between the Pear-mans against City of Radcliff, Kentucky and Joint City-County Planning Commission of Hardin County, Kentucky.
The question presented is whether local property owners not a party to the action had a right to intervene nine days after judgment was entered in favor of the Pear-mans in their action against the City of Radcliff and the Joint City-County Planning Commission of Hardin County, Kentucky.
For a determination of the issue it is necessary to detail some pertinent facts.
The Pearmans owned certain property in the city of Radcliff known as Indian Hills Subdivision, Section 7, They desired to build an apartment house in Section 7 and sought a zoning change from R-2 (single-family residence) to R-5 (multi-family dwelling). The Joint City-County Planning Commission of Hardin County recommended to the city council of Radcliff that the proposed change be granted. After a public hearing the Radcliff City Council denied the requested change.
The Pearmans then filed a complaint in the circuit court in which they alleged that denial of the change by the Radcliff City Council was arbitrary and capricious. The Pearmans' complaint was against the city of Radcliff and the Joint City-County Planning Commission. On August 24, 1976, the trial court entered a judgment setting aside the action of the Radcliff City Council. The judgment also directed the city council to rezone the Pearmans' property from an R-2 classification to an R-5 classification. The Radcliff City Council took no appeal from that judgment.
On September 2, 1976, Virginia Schlaak, et al, local property owners, filed a motion to intervene as additional parties defendant "for the purpose of instituting an appeal." The local property owners tendered a notice of appeal from the judgment of August 24, 1976. They also tendered a pleading styled "motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and in the alternative for a new trial."
On September 17, 1976, the trial court overruled the motion of Schlaak, et al, to intervene. The circuit court held that the interests of Schlaak, et al, had been adequately protected by the defense made on behalf of the City of Radcliff and that the motion to intervene after judgment was not timely filed. Schlaak, et al, then appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals. On September 23, 1977, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and entered an order permitting Schlaak, et al, to prosecute an appeal of the trial court's decision.
This court is of the view that the answer to the question is interwoven in CR 24.01 which provides:
"Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action (a) when a statue confers an unconditional right to intervene, or (b) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and he is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties." (Emphasis added).
Virginia Schlaak, et al, do not contend that a statute confers on them an unconditional right to intervene. They do contend, however, that they have "an interest relating to the property . . . which is the subject of the action . . and [are] so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede [their] ability to protect that interest. . . "
Virginia Schlaak and the other local property owners do not claim they did not have actual notice of the trial-type hearing by the Radcliff City Council. They were present at the hearing and were represented by the same attorney who represents them here. Furthermore, they have shown no reason why they waited until after the trial court's decision before they sought to intervene.
This court has held that a party seeking intervention after judgment has a special burden of justifying the lack of timeliness. Monticello Electric Plant Board v. Board of Education, Ky., 310 S.W.2d 272 (1958). Here, it is obvious that Virginia Schlaak and the other local property owners have not overcome the special burden of justifying the lack of timeliness. They were content to sit under their own "vine" and let the Radcliff City Council carry the burden.
This court promulgated CR 24.01 as a guideline for intervention as a matter of right. The local property owners failed to abide by that rule. As late as 1971 the court had a similar factual situation involving the right of intervention under CR 24.-01. The court in explaining the reason for the rule held:
"We do not conceive that CR 24.01 intends that if a party who is representing the interests of a nonparty adequately represents those interests, but judgment nevertheless goes against those interests, the party must appeal else the nonparty may intervene as a matter of right. If that were the rule, a nonparty could simply lie back and await the result of the action in circuit court and then, if not satisfied with the judgment, compel a retrial by the device of intervening after judgment." Murphy v. Lexington-Fayette County Airport Board, Ky., 472 S.W.2d 688 (1971).
The Court of Appeals attempted to distinguish Murphy, supra, from the facts here, by saying "the person seeking to intervene in Murphy had not participated in the trial of the case." Virginia Schlaak and the other property owners did not participate in the trial of this case because they had not sought intervention prior to judgment. They were seeking a free ride on the train of the Radcliff City Council, and were left at the station when the city council failed to prosecute an appeal from the decision of the trial court.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed; the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
PALMORE, C. J., and STEPHENSON and STERNBERG, JJ., concur.
REED, J., files a dissenting opinion in which CLAYTON and LUKOWSKY, JJ., join.