Motion to Intervene in Michigan

Background

“Both MCR 2.209(A)(3), regarding intervention as of right, and MCR 2.209(B)(2), regarding permissive intervention require a ‘timely application’ for intervention.” (Foote Hosp. v. Public Health Dep't. (1995) 210 Mich. App. 516, 525 [finding that “the trial court abused its discretion in granting [movant] Crittenton's motion to intervene.”])

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“MCR 2.209(A)(3) provides that a party has a right to intervene when:

‘the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and 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.’”

(Johnson v. Titan Indem. Co., No. 308685, at *3-4 [Mich. Ct. App. May 21, 2013] quoting MCR 2.209(A)(3).)

“The decision whether to grant a motion to intervene is within the court's discretion.” (Johnson v. Titan Indem. Co., No. 308685, at *3-4 [Mich. Ct. App. May 21, 2013] citing Precision Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Meram Const, Inc. (1992) 195 Mich App 153, 156.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

Courts of Appeal will “review a trial court's decision on a motion to intervene for an abuse of discretion.” (Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Keizer-Morris, Inc. (2009) 284 Mich App 610, 612; Johnson v. Titan Indem. Co., No. 308685, at *3 [Mich. Ct. App. May 21, 2013].)

“A trial court abuses its discretion when it reaches a decision that falls ‘outside the principled range of outcomes.’” (Auto-Owners Ins Co, 284 Mich App at 612; Johnson v. Titan Indem. Co., No. 308685, at *3 [Mich. Ct. App. May 21, 2013].)

The Court’s Decision

“The rule for intervention should be liberally construed to allow intervention where the applicant's interests may be inadequately represented.” (Neal v. Neal (1996) 219 Mich App 490, 492.)

However, “intervention may not be proper where it will have the effect of delaying the action or producing a multifariousness of parties and causes of action.” (Johnson v. Titan Indem. Co., No. 308685, at *3-4 [Mich. Ct. App. May 21, 2013] citing Precision Pipe & Supply, Inc., supra, 195 Mich App. at 157.)