Motion to Intervene in Iowa

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Intervene

Intervention is the “procedure by which a third person, not originally a party to the suit, but claiming an interest in the subject matter, comes into the case, in order to protect his right or interpose his claim.” (See Neill v. Western Inns, Inc. (1999) 595 N.W.2d 121, 124-25.)

“Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.407 sets forth who is generally entitled to intervention. A person may intervene under rule 1.407(1) when the person has a legal right or liability that will be directly affected by the litigation." (See In the Interst of J.J (2010) 789 N.W.2d 166.)

"Although we are to liberally construe the rule of intervention, we must be certain the applicant has asserted a legal right or liability that will be directly affected by the litigation." (See id; In the Matter of H.N.B (2000) 619 N.W.2d 340, 343.)

“A person must have more than an indirect, speculative, or remote interest to intervene. We consider statutory guidance in determining whether a person has a right to intervene.” (See id.)

Rules for Filing a Motion to Intervene

Rule 1.407 of the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure governs interventions.

“Upon timely application, anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action under any of the following circumstances:

1. When a statute confers an unconditional right to intervene.
2. When the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant 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.”

(See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.407(1).)

“Upon timely application, anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action under any of the following circumstances:

1. When a statute confers a conditional right to intervene.
2. When an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common.
3. When a party to an action relies for ground of claim or defense upon any statute or executive order administered by a federal or state governmental officer or agency or upon any regulation, order, requirement, or agreement issued or made pursuant to the statute or executive order, the officer or agency upon timely application may be permitted to intervene in the action. In exercising its discretion, the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.”

(See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.407(2).)

“A person desiring to intervene shall serve a motion to intervene upon the parties. The motion shall state the grounds therefor and shall be accompanied by a pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought.” (See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.407(3).)

“The court shall grant interventions of right unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties. The court shall consider applications for permissive intervention and grant or deny the application as the circumstances require. The intervenor shall have no right to delay, and shall pay the costs of the intervention unless the intervenor prevails.” (See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.407(4).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Intervene

“We review the denial of a motion to intervene for legal error. However, we afford some discretion to the district court.” (See In re G.E., No. 21-1121, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2021); In re H.N.B. (2000) 619 N.W.2d 340, 342.)

"This discretion is not the ability to deny intervention where the prerequisites of the Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.407 have been met.” (See id.)

“Rather, this discretion is to be exercised on the question of whether an intervenor is 'interested' in the litigation." (See id; In re A.G. (1997) 558 N.W.2d 400, 403; In re E.G. (2007) 738 N.W.2d 653, 655.)

"A district court abuses its discretion when the grounds underlying a district court order are clearly untenable or unreasonable." (See Fenceroy v. Gelita USA, Inc. (2018) 908 N.W.2d 235, 241; Sioux Pharm, Inc. v. Eagle Labs., Inc. (2015) 865 N.W.2d 528, 535; Mediacom Iowa, L.L.C. v. Inc. City of Spencer (2004) 682 N.W.2d 62, 66.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Intervene

It is well settled that “in determining whether an applicant has a legal interest, we examine the source of the right claimed. An indirect, speculative, or remote interest will not provide one a right to intervene.” (See In the Matter of H.N.B (2000) 619 N.W.2d 340, 343.)

It is also well settled that “an intervenor must typically accept an action as it exists at the time of intervention. Thus, a party who intervenes in a case in which the court has subject matter jurisdiction, and asks for relief, waives any challenge to the authority or jurisdiction of the court over the particular case. However, an intervenor is not prohibited from advancing other claims and defenses appropriate to the case following intervention.” (See Keokuk County v. H.B (1999) 593 N.W.2d 118, 123; Morse v. Morse (1956) 247 Iowa 1113, 1122-23, 77 N.W.2d 622, 627-28; 59 Am. Jur. 2d Parties §§ 173, 174, at 672-75 (1987).)