Court Opinion

ID: 9853871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:56:34.324667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:13.002189
License: Public Domain

Judge Walker
concurring.
I concur with the ultimate decision in this case; however, I believe Ms. Wilcox may proceed to intervene in this matter pursuant to Rule 24 of the N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure which provides, in pertinent part:
(a) Intervention of right. — Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action:
(2) 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 *65protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 24(a)(2) (1990).
In interpreting this rule, our Court, in State Employees’ Credit Union, Inc. v. Gentry, 75 N.C. App. 260, 330 S.E.2d 645 (1985), stated that:
As a general rule, . . . motions to intervene made after judgment has been rendered are disfavored and are granted only after a finding of extraordinary and unusual circumstances or upon a strong showing of entitlement and justification.
Id. at 264, 330 S.E.2d at 648.
Here, since Ms. Wilcox’s property interests have been affected by the trial court’s judgment, this is an “extraordinary and unusual circumstance,” and she should be permitted to intervene in order to have standing as a party to file a Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from the judgment.