Opinion ID: 1140725
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the intervention.

Text: It was at this juncture in the proceedings that the plaintiffs in error, Dana Crawford, Robert L. Stearns, Jean K. Bain, William B. Chenoweth and Mildred Taylor (collectively hereinafter referred to as Crawford), over objection of Swan, were granted leave by the trial court to intervene [R.C.P.Colo. 24(a) (2)]. The Crawford group are residents and taxpayers of Denver, living in the vicinity of Cheeseman Park, and are interested in preserving the mountain view from the park for themselves and all other residents of Denver. The order granting the petition to intervene gives rise to the first issue presented for our consideration. Swan consistently, by appropriate motions, challenged the correctness of the trial court's ruling which permitted Crawford to intervene for the sole purpose of appealing the trial court's judgment affirming the Board of Appeals. The appeal was perfected within the time limitation of the writ of error procedure then in effect; consequently, the intervention did not result in any delay in the determination of those issues properly raised in the motions for new trial filed by the City. Under other circumstances we would be compelled to meet the intervention issue head-on, but because of the fact that we affirm the trial court on the merits of the controversy we have elected not to decide the issue in this instance. We therefore proceed to consideration of the substantive issue.