Motion to Intervene in Missouri

Background

“Rule 52.12(a) permits intervention as a matter of right." in an action.” (See Howe v. Heartland Midwest, LLC (2020) 604 S.W.3d 774, 781.)

“Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of this state confers an unconditional right to intervene or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.” (See Barnett v. Columbia Maint. Co. (2021) 632 S.W.3d 396, 401.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“A movant may intervene in an action as a matter of right upon timely application pursuant to Rule 52.12(a)(2) when three requirements are met:

1. the movant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action;
2. the movant's ability to protect the interest is impaired or impeded; and
3. the existing parties are inadequately representing the movant's interest.”

(See Barnett v. Columbia Maint. Co. (2021) 632 S.W.3d 396, 403.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“In reviewing the circuit court's denial of intervention as of right, we consider the facts in the light most favorable to the court's judgment." (See Barnett v. Columbia Maint. Co. (2021) 632 S.W.3d 396, 401.)

“We will affirm the circuit court's decision unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law.” (See id.)

“This Court will affirm the circuit court's decision regarding intervention as a matter of right unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law."  (See Corson v. Corson (2022) 640 S.W.3d 785, 788.)

"This Court reviews determinations regarding the timeliness of an application to intervene under Rule 52.12 for abuse of discretion." (See id; Frost v. White  (1989) 778 S.W.2d 670, 673.)

The Court’s Decisions

“It is well settled that “for mandatory intervention, Rule 52.12(a)(2) requires that an intervenor have an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the main action.” (See Fire Assur., Inc. v. Cotton Blossom Corp. (1980) 599 S.W.2d 11, 12.)

It is also well settled that “one of the conditions which must be established to secure intervention as a matter of right is that the interests of the proposed intervenor are not adequately represented by existing parties.” (See Howe v. Heartland Midwest, LLC (2020) 604 S.W.3d 774, 781.)