 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Estate of Schwenke3/3/1992
under a reservation of rights, rather than waiting until one week before trial to move to intervene for the sole purpose of delaying the trial.
Having determined that State Farm's motion was not timely, it is unnecessary to consider whether the other requirements for intervention as a matter of right under Rule 24(a), M.R.Civ.P., were satisfied. Accordingly, we hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying State Farm's motion to intervene as a matter of right.
State Farm next contends that the District Court erred in denying permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), M.R.Civ.P. This rule provides in relevant part:
Permissive intervention. Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action: . . . (2) when an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common. . . . In exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.
As the language of each subsection of Rule 24, M.R.Civ.P., indicates, a motion to intervene must be timely regardless of whether intervention is sought as of right under 24(a) or by permission under 24(b). Because we have already concluded that State Farm's motion to intervene was not timely, State Farm did not satisfy the threshold prerequisite for permissive intervention. We hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying State Farm's motion to intervene.
Affirmed.
CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE, and JUSTICES HARRISON, TRIEWEILER, HUNT, McDONOUGH and WEBER concur.
|