Motion to Intervene in Ohio

What Is a Motion to Intervene?

Background

Civ. R. 24(A)(2) provides for the right to intervene and reads in relevant part:

“Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: [...] when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject 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.”

(Likover v. Cleveland (1978) 60 Ohio App. 2d 154, 156 quoting Civ. R. 24(A)(2).)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Based upon Civ. R. 24 (A), the following elements must be met before a party may intervene:

the intervenor must claim an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action;
the intervenor must be so situated that the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the intervenor's ability to protect his or her interest;
the intervenor must demonstrate that his or her interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties; and
the motion to intervene must be timely.”

(Peterman v. Pataskala (1997) 122 Ohio App. 3d 758, 760-61 citing Fairview Gen. Hosp. v. Fletcher (1990), 69 Ohio App.3d 827, 831.)

“Ohio case law has established that the right to intervene must be liberally construed.” (Peterman,id., citing Blackburn v. Hamoudi (1986), 29 Ohio App.3d 360, 363.)

‘Timely Filed’ Defined

In Grubbs v. Norris, the court set forth five factors that govern the determination of whether a motion to intervene has been timely filed:

the point to which the suit has progressed;
the purpose for which intervention is sought;
the length of time preceding the application during which the intervenor knew or reasonably should have known of his interest in the case;(4) the prejudice to the original
parties due to the proposed intervenor's failure, after he or she knew or reasonably should have known of his or her interest in the case, to apply promptly for intervention; and
the existence of unusual circumstances militating against or in favor of intervention.

(Peterman v. Pataskala (1997) 122 Ohio App. 3d 758, 762 quoting Grubbs v. Norris (C.A.6, 1989), 870 F.2d 343, 345.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“In reviewing the trial court's denial of appellants’ motion to intervene, [courts] apply an abuse-of-discretion standard.” (Peterman v. Pataskala (1997) 122 Ohio App. 3d 758, 761 citing Jamestown Village Condominium Owners Assn. v. Market Media Research, Inc. (1994) 96 Ohio App.3d 678, 694.)

“Abuse of discretion connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.” (Peterman, id., citing Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 5 OBR 481, 482-483.)

The Court’s Decision

“‘[D]enial of [a] motion to intervene is warranted on the basis of a failure to comply with the pleading requirement alone.’” (The Nigh Law Grp. v. Pond Family Med. Ctr., 2022 Ohio 2036, 7 [Ohio Ct. App. 2022] quoting Whitehall at ¶ 35, citing State ex rel. Sawicki v. Court of Common Pleas of Lucas Cty., 121 Ohio St.3d 507, 2009-Ohio-1523, ¶ 21-22.)

Not Final Appealable Order

“There is no authority to support the general proposition that a motion to intervene always constitutes a final, appealable order.” (Gehm v. Timberline Post & Frame (2007) 112 Ohio St. 3d 514, 520.)

“[T]he denial of the motion to intervene is not a final, appealable order [if] it does not affect a provisional remedy” and also in the instant where “the denial of a motion to intervene, when the purpose for which intervention was sought may be litigated in another action, does not affect a substantial right under R.C. 2505.02(B)(1) that determines the action and prevents the judgment.” (Gehm v. Timberline Post & Frame (2007) 112 Ohio St. 3d 514, 520 at ¶ 37.)

Documents for Motion to Intervene in Ohio

Sort By

12-CV-0127

4 pages

IAG GGURT HE COUNTY, OHIO IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 313 2% 16 AN 73 WAYNE COUNTY, OHIO o ¢ u ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, CASE NO. 12-CV-0127 Plaintiff, JUDGE SPITLER v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE’S NOTICE OF MOTION REQUESTING SEALED DOCUMENTS LIFETIME REPAIR, LLC, et al., we eS SS Defendants. Plaintiff Erie Insurance Exchange files this notice that it is intervening in a related action, Speer v. Speer, Summit County Common Pleas Case No. CV-2008-05-3572 filed on May 7, 2008, for th…

Case Name 12-CV-0127