Motion to Intervene in Georgia

What Is a Motion to Intervene?

Background

“[I]ntervention as the procedure by which a third person, not originally a party to a suit, but claiming an interest in the subject matter, comes into the case, in order to protect his right or interpose his claim. A true intervenor takes the case as he finds it and cannot expand the litigation; he or she merely stakes a claim to a share in the result of the pending litigation.” (Andrews v. Ford Motor Company (2011) 310 Ga. App. 449, 453 citing AC Corp. v. Myree (1996) 221 Ga. App. 513, 515 (1).)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“OCGA § 9-11-24 (a)(2) provides that, upon timely application, anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action:

‘[w]hen the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject matter 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 protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.’”

(Andrews v. Ford Motor Company (2011) 310 Ga. App. 449, 453-54 quoting OCGA § 9-11-24 (a)(2).)

Timeliness of Motion to Intervene

“Intervention must be timely, whether asserted as a right or as a matter of discretion.” (Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Quiroga-Saenz (2017) 343 Ga. App. 494, 498-99 citing Sta–Power Indus. v. Avant (1975) 134 Ga. App. 952, 958 (3).)

“‘Intervention after judgment is not usually permitted[,] and to justify it requires a strong showing’ such as the preservation of ‘some right which cannot otherwise be protected.’” (Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Quiroga-Saenz (2017) 343 Ga. App. 494, 498-99 citing Sta–Power, supra, 134 Ga. App. at 958–959 (3).)

“Whether a motion to intervene is timely is a decision entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Quiroga-Saenz (2017) 343 Ga. App. 494, 498-99 citing Kroger v. Taylor (2013) 320 Ga. App. 298, 298.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

Appellate courts review a trial court's ruling on a motion to intervene under an abuse of discretion standard. (See, e.g., Stephens v. McGaerity (2008) 290 Ga. App. 755, 759 [“The trial court thus abused its discretion when it denied [appellant]'s motion to intervene.”])

The Court’s Decision

“Intervention does not occur until the court enters an order permitting it.” (Andrews, supra, 310 Ga. App. at 453-54 citing Thomas v. Jackson (1976) 238 Ga. 90, 94 (3).)

“One who is allowed by a court order to intervene acquires the status of a party and may file any pleading in the case that the original parties could have filed.” (Andrews, id., citing Woodward v. Lawson (1969) 225 Ga. 261, 262; see also Int'l. Maintenance Corp. v. Inland Paper c. (2002) 256 Ga. App. 752, 754 (1) [“an intervenor [may] file whatever briefs, evidence, or other papers it chooses,” and also “may choose discovery tactics different from those of a plaintiff.”])

Documents for Motion to Intervene in Georgia

Sort By

(Final) Consolidated Pre-Trial Order - Joyner v. Castignino

5 pages

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA TESS JOYNER Plaintiff, And SHELIA JOYNER Proposed Intervenor v. CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.: 22FM3075 CHRISTOPHER CASTAGNINO, Defendant. CONSOLIDATED PRE-TRIAL ORDER …