Opinion ID: 2411808
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: timeliness of motion to intervene

Text: The circuit court found as a matter of law that Farms failed to assert whatever rights it may have had in PCA's cross-claim in due time under Ark.R.Civ.P. 24(a). Farms argues, however, that over the seven-year period it believed PCA was protecting its interest in the cross-claim against Cargill and only recently concluded that it was not. Timeliness under Rule 24(a) is a matter lying within the discretion of the trial court and will not be subject to reversal absent abuse of that discretion. Polnac-Hartman & Assoc. v. First National Bank, supra ; see also, NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345, 365-366, 93 S.Ct. 2591, 2603, 37 L.Ed.2d 648 (1973), where the Court stated that the trial court in exercising its sound discretion must first be satisfied as to timeliness and that timeliness is to be determined from all the circumstances. The issue then left to be resolved is whether the circuit court abused its discretion. We hold that it did not. Factors to consider in a decision on timeliness are: 1) how far the proceedings have progressed; 2) any prejudice to other parties caused by the delay; and 3) the reason for the delay. Leach v. Standard Register Co., 94 F.R.D. 192 (W.D.Ark. 1982). Delay in asserting a right is obviously a critical factor. For example, a federal district court in Pennsylvania denied intervention as untimely specifically because the intervenor chose to remain inactive for two-and-a-half years. Dodson v. Salvitti, 11 F.R.D. 674 (E.D.Pa.1977). Farms could have asserted its rights as early as 1981 when it paid the debt Brothers owed to PCA, but it declined to do so. We give little credence to its proffered explanation that it believed PCA was protecting its interest and only discovered late in the game that it was not. PCA had been sued by Brothers in 1983 and had counterclaimed against Brothers and sought to foreclose property owned by Farms in 1984. To contend that the arrangement between Farms and PCA was friendly and that PCA was prosecuting its cross-claim against Cargill on Farms' behalf are improbable assertions in light of the litigation. We certainly perceive no duty on the part of PCA to protect the interest of Farms. See Dodson v. Salvitti, supra . Not protecting a claimed interest in over four hundred thousand dollars for either seven or ten years shows a profound dilatoriness in pursuing that claim. We cannot say that this failure on Farms' part has not prejudiced those remaining parties whose position is antithetical to that taken by Farms. Clearly, PCA and Cargill have sought to settle their differences. Moreover, the reason given for the delay does not withstand scrutiny. We hold that the circuit court's ruling on untimeliness was correct.