Opinion ID: 2758877
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the district court improperly granted

Text: INTERVENTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE RULE 24(a) FACTORS ¶ 16 Ms. Gardiner argues that the district court erred when it granted the Cousins’ motion to intervene because they failed to satisfy the elements of rule 24(a) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs intervention of right. At the time the parties submitted briefing, State v. Bosh established our standard of review concerning the propriety of a grant of intervention of right.10 Just one week after briefing was completed in this case, we issued Supernova Media, Inc. v. Pia Anderson Dorius Reynard & Moss, LLC, which clarified our standard of review for motions to intervene under rule 24(a).11 In Bosh, we stated that a motion to intervene of right was reviewed for correctness, 12 but in Supernova Media we clarified that ―ruling on a motion to intervene encompasses several types of analysis, each subject to a different standard of review.‖13 ―As a general matter, the factual findings underpinning an intervention ruling are subject to a clearly erroneous standard, and the district court’s interpretation of rule 24(a) is reviewed for correctness.‖14 ¶ 17 A party attempting to intervene under rule 24(a) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure must establish four elements: (1) that its motion to intervene was timely, (2) that it has an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action, (3) that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede [its] ability to protect that interest, and (4) that its interest is not adequately represented by existing parties.15 10 2011 UT 60, ¶ 5, 266 P.3d 788. 11 2013 UT 7, ¶¶ 14–18, 297 P.3d 599. 12 Bosh, 2011 UT 60, ¶ 5. 13 Supernova Media, 2013 UT 7, ¶ 14. 14 Id. (citation omitted). 15 Id. ¶ 22 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). 7 GARDINER v. VANDERWERFF Opinion of the Court ¶ 18 In this case, the district court’s order granting the motion to intervene did not state the basis for the court’s decision, nor did the court make findings on the rule 24(a) elements at the February 27, 2012, hearing.16 Instead of analyzing the propriety of intervention under the Supernova Media factors, the court appears to have erroneously based its decision on its conclusion that Ms. Gardiner was required to serve the Cousins and that the Cousins should have had an opportunity to present evidence at the marriage adjudication. Significantly, the court failed to address the timeliness of the Cousins’ motion to intervene, which was filed over a year after the declaration of marriage was entered. As a general rule, ―intervention is not to be permitted after entry of judgment.‖ 17 We regard ―[p]ostjudgment intervention . . . with disfavor‖ due to its ―tendency . . . to prejudice the rights of existing parties‖ and unduly interfere with the ―orderly processes of the court.‖ 18 Thus, we are ―reluctant to make exceptions to the general rule.‖19 Postjudgment intervention should be allowed ―only upon a strong showing of entitlement and justification, or such unusual or compelling circumstances as will justify the failure to seek intervention earlier.‖20 ¶ 19 In this case, the Cousins sought intervention over a year after the marriage declaration was entered, even though it appears that at least one of them was aware of the marriage 16 The order simply states that ―[t]he motion to intervene in this action brought by [the Vanderwerff Cousins], who are cousins and potential heirs of Kenneth Vanderwerff, is hereby granted.‖ 17 Jenner v. Real Estate Servs., 659 P.2d 1072, 1074 (Utah 1983); see also Supernova Media, 2013 UT 7, ¶ 24 (―Generally, a motion to intervene is timely if it is filed before the final settlement of all issues by all parties, and before entry of judgment or dismissal[.]‖ (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 18 Jenner, 659 P.2d at 1074; accord Supernova Media, 2013 UT 7, ¶ 23. 19 Jenner, 659 P.2d at 1074. 20 Id. (footnotes omitted). 8 Cite as: 2014 UT 56 Opinion of the Court proceeding at the time it occurred.21 If this is true, it appears that if the Cousins choose to seek intervention again on remand, they will have a difficult time showing that their motion to intervene was timely.22 ¶ 20 We stop short of weighing in on the question of whether, assuming their motion was timely, the Cousins could have shown, as a matter of law, that they had an ‖interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action.‖23 This court discussed that question in In re Marriage of Gonzalez but failed to achieve a majority resolution.24 Because the timeliness of the Cousins’ motion is a threshold question that is ―determined under the facts and circumstances of [the] particular case, and in 21 The declaration of Nedra Taufer states that ―I was aware . . . that Janetta Gardiner would be appointed as personal representative of the estate. I was also aware of Ms. Gardiner’s petition to be made a common law spouse as well as her attorney’s acknowledgement in court in August 2010 that the two cases could be consolidated.‖ 22 See Supernova Media, 2013 UT 7, ¶ 24 (―A party may waive its right to intervene by substantially and unjustifiably delaying its motion to intervene.‖); Bosh, 2011 UT 60, ¶ 8 (―As a general rule intervention is not to be permitted after entry of judgment . . . .‖ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Republic Ins. Grp. v. Doman, 774 P.2d 1130, 1131 (Utah 1989) (affirming denial of intervention when a party had ―notice and opportunity to intervene at an earlier stage of the proceeding,‖ yet waited until a motion for summary judgment had been submitted before requesting intervention). 23 Supernova Media, 2013 UT 7, ¶ 22 (internal quotation marks omitted); UTAH R. CIV. P. 24(a)(2). 24 2000 UT 28, ¶¶ 49, 50, 1 P.3d 1074 (Zimmerman, J., concurring) (2-1-2 decision) (in an action for adjudication of an unsolemnized marriage, a majority of the court upheld the parties’ stipulation to intervention of a third party but the court was split on the question of whether intervention by third parties in marriage adjudications is generally proper as a matter of law). 9 GARDINER v. VANDERWERFF Opinion of the Court the sound discretion of the court,‖25 we remand but stop short of deciding whether intervention would be proper considering the other three Supernova Media factors for rule 24(a) intervention.26 Because the district court failed to make findings on the necessary elements for granting intervention, especially timeliness, we reverse the grant of intervention without prejudice27 and instruct the district court to conduct a full analysis of the Supernova Media factors if the Cousins attempt to intervene again.