Original Petition in Intervention in Texas

What Is an Original Petition in Intervention?

Background

“Any party may intervene by filing a pleading, subject to being stricken out by the court for sufficient cause on the motion of any party." (Tex. R. Civ. P. 60.) Rule 60 “authorizes a party with a justiciable interest in a pending suit to intervene in the suit as a matter of right.” (In re Union Carbide (2008) 273 S.W.3d 152, 154.)

How to Structure the Motion

An intervenor has a justiciable interest in a lawsuit “when his interests will be affected by the litigation.” (In re Webb (2008) 266 S.W.3d 544, 548.) The interest asserted by the intervenor may be legal or equitable, but generally must be more than “a mere contingent or remote interest.” (In re Webb, 266 S.W.3d at 548; see Guar. Fed. Sav. Bank v. Horseshoe Operating Co. (1990) 793 S.W.2d 652, 657.)

An intervenor need not secure the trial court's permission to intervene; rather, a party opposing the intervention has the burden to challenge it by a motion to strike. (Harris Cty. v. Luna-Prudencio (2009) 294 S.W.3d 690, 699; see also Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Pennzoil Co. (1993) 866 S.W.2d 248, 250 [“An entity need only file a petition in intervention and await a motion to strike it.”])

Response

If a party moves to strike the intervention, the burden shifts to the intervenor to show a justiciable interest in the suit. (In re Union Carbide (2008) 273 S.W.3d 152, 155; In re Webb, supra, 266 S.W.3d at 548.) An intervenor has a justiciable interest in a lawsuit “when his interests will be affected by the litigation.” (In re Webb, 266 S.W.3d at 548.) The interest asserted by the intervenor may be legal or equitable, but generally must be more than “a mere contingent or remote interest.” (In re Webb, 266 S.W.3d at 548; see Guar. Fed. Sav. Bank v. Horseshoe Operating Co. (1990) 793 S.W.2d 652, 657.)

Timeline

Although there is not a deadline for intervention in the Rules of Civil Procedure, a significant delay in filing a petition in intervention may qualify as "sufficient cause" to strike an intervention. (Tex. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ledbetter (2008) 251 S.W.3d 31, 36; Muller v. Stewart Title Guar. Co. (2017) 525 S.W.3d 859, 874.)

“‘[U]ntimely' with respect to a petition in intervention [lateness can] refer to a petition filed so late that it would delay the proceeding or unjustifiably complicate it.” (Muller, supra, 525 S.W.3d at 874 [holding trial court acts within its broad discretion in striking late-filed petition in intervention]; see Allen Parker Co., 2013 WL 2457113, at *6 [considering “last-minute nature” of attempted intervention in finding no abuse of discretion by trial court in striking intervention].)

The Court’s Decision

The appeals couut reviews a trial court's ruling on a motion to strike a petition in intervention for an abuse of discretion. (In re Lumbermans Mut. Cas. Co. (2006) 184 S.W.3d 718, 722.) A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts without reference to any guiding rules and principles. (Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc. (1985) 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42.)

Although the trial court has broad discretion in determining whether an intervention should be stricken, a trial court abuses its discretion by striking the petition if:

the intervenor could have brought the same action, or any part thereof, in his own name,
the intervention will not complicate the case by an excessive multiplication of the issues, and
the intervention is almost essential to effectively protect the intervenor's interest.

(Guar. Fed. Savs. Bank, supra, 793 S.W.2d at 657; Ginther v. Bank of Am., N.A. (2010) No. 01-08-00430-CV, 2010 WL 2244098, at *6; R. Hassell & Co. v. Springwoods Realty Co. (2018) No. 01-17-00154-CV, at *12-13.)

“Because a trial court has ‘broad’ discretion in determining whether to strike an intervention, that discretion presumably includes consideration of all issues related to whether intervention was proper in the case under the circumstances, i.e., any sufficient cause.” (Muller v. Stewart Title Guar. Co. (2017) 525 S.W.3d 859, 873 [quoting Allen Parker Co. v. Trustmark Nat'l Bank, No. 14-12-00766-CV, 2013 WL 2457113, at *6.])

Documents for Original Petition in Intervention in Texas

Sort By

Ramon Garcia, Yazmin Anaid Garcia, Saida Garcia VS. MAR Designs & Construction, Inc.,Mario Rodriguez,Aracely Rodriguez document preview

Motion - ARACELY RODRIGUEZ' MOTION TO RELEASE EXCESS PROCEEDS

7 pages

Electronically Filed 5/1/2024 2:36 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Maria De Jesus Gonzal CAUSE NO. C-0081-23-G RAMON GARCIA, YAZMIN ANAID § IN THE DISTRICT COURT GARCIA and SAIDA GARCIA, …

Case Name Ramon Garcia, Yazmin Anaid Garcia, Saida Garcia VS. MAR Designs & Construc…