Motion to Intervene in New Mexico

Background

“Intervention is an act or proceeding whereby a person is permitted to become a party in an action between other persons, after which the litigation proceeds with the original and intervening parties.” (Ruybalid v. Segura (1988) 107 N.M. 660, 663 citing State v. Reese (1967) 78 N.M. 241.) “SCRA 1986, 1-024 provides for intervention of right and permissive intervention.” (Id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

A proposed intervenor has a right to intervene when:

1. it “claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action,”
2. it “is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede [its] ability to protect that interest,” and
3. its interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties to the litigation.

(Arroyo Hondo Recreation Cmty. Ctr. v. Cnty. of Taos, No. A-1-CA-36785, at *2 [N.M. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2019] quoting Rule 1-024(A)(2) NMRA.)

“To determine whether intervention is proper, the district court must consider the timeliness of the application and whether it is necessary to preserve a right, which would not otherwise be protected.” (Arroyo Hondo Recreation Cmty. Ctr. v. Cnty. of Taos, No. A-1-CA-36785, at *2 [N.M. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2019] citing Rule 1-024(A); Richins v. Mayfield, 1973-NMSC-099, ¶¶ 6-7, 85 N.M. 578.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The denial of a motion to intervene will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court.” (Ruybalid v. Segura (1988) 107 N.M. 660, 663 citing Richins v. Mayfield (1973) 85 N.M. 578.)

“Whether a party has standing to litigate a particular issue is a question of law, which we review de novo.” (Forest Guardians v. Powell, 2001-NMCA-028, ¶ 5, 130 N.M. 368, 24 P.3d 803.” Hicks-Lovelace v. Lovelace, No. 31,488, at *6 [N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2013].)

The Court’s Decision

“Denial of a motion to intervene is an appealable order.” (Chino Mines Co. v. Del Curto (1992) 114 N.M. 521, 522 citing Apodaca v. Town of Tome Land Grant (1974) 86 N.M. 132.)

“In reviewing an appeal from an order involving denial of intervention as a matter of right under Rule 1-024(A), where the facts underlying the application are not in dispute, we review the propriety of the court's ruling as an issue of law.” (Chino Mines Co. v. Del Curto (1992) 114 N.M. 521, 523 citing Cook v. Boorstin (1985) 763 F.2d 1462 [D.C. Cir.].)