Printable Format60-224. Intervention. (a) Intervention of right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who:
(1) Is given an unconditional right to intervene by a statute; or
(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter substantially impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.
(b) Permissive intervention. (1) In general. On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who:
(A) Is given a conditional right to intervene by a statute; or
(B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.
(2) By a government officer or agency. (A) On timely motion, the court may permit a governmental officer or agency to intervene if a party's claim or defense is based on:
(i) A statute or executive order administered by the officer or agency; or
(ii) any regulation, order, requirement or agreement issued or made under the statute or executive order.
(B) When the validity of an ordinance, regulation, statute or constitutional provision of this state or a governmental subdivision of this state is drawn in question in any action to which the state or governmental subdivision or an officer, agency or employee thereof is not a party, the court may notify the chief legal officer of the state or its subdivision, and permit intervention on proper application.
(C) When notice to the attorney general is required by K.S.A. 75-764, and amendments thereto, the court must permit intervention by the attorney general on proper application.
(3) Delay or prejudice. In exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties' rights.
(c) Notice and pleading required. A motion to intervene must be served on the parties as provided in K.S.A. 60-205, and amendments thereto. The motion must state the grounds for intervention and be accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-224; amended by Supreme Court order dated July 17, 1969; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 93; L. 2016, ch. 8, § 2; July 1.
Source or prior law:
(a). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 42; L. 1877, ch. 137, § 1; L. 1909, ch. 182, §§ 41, 45; R.S. 1923, 60-417, 60-421.
(b). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 42; L. 1877, ch. 137, § 1; L. 1909, ch. 182, §§ 41, 45; R.S. 1923, 60-417, 60-421.
Cross References to Related Sections:
Joinder of persons needed for just adjudication, see 60-219.
Interpleader, see 60-222.
Substitution of parties, see 60-225.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Paragraphs (a) and (c); intervention of heir in wrongful death action, Lawrence E. Curfman, 12 K.L.R. 21, 23 (1963).
Survey of civil procedure, Spencer A. Gard, 17 K.L.R. 739, 749 (1969).
Insurer's right to intervene as a party defendant in suit brought by insured discussed in survey of Kansas insurance law, 21 K.L.R. 157, 159 (1972).
"In the Best Interests of the Divided Family: An Analysis of the 1982 Amendments to the Kansas Divorce Code," Nancy G. Maxwell, 22 W.L.J. 177, 240 (1983).
"Zoning and Planning: The Economics of State Land Use and the Balancing of Interests Test [Herrmann v. Board of County Commissioners of Butler County, 246 Kan. 152, 785 P.2d 1003 (1990)]," J. Scott MacBeth, 30 W.L.J. 148, 149 (1990).
"Grandparent Visitation Rights in Kansas: A review of Troxel v. Granville," Suzanne Valdez Carey, 69 J.K.B.A. No. 9, 14 (2000).
Attorney General's Opinions:
Cited in reference to KDHE administration of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. 87-130.
Secretary of health and environment, activities; water supply and sewage; implementation of clean water act; N.P.D.E.S. program. 87-154.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-417, 60-421 and the 1961 Supp. thereto.
1. Deals with permissive intervention. (Dissent.) Moyer v. Board of County Commissioners, 197 Kan. 23, 34, 415 P.2d 261.
2. "Timely application" has application until adequate representation ceases. Moyer v. Board of County Commissioners, 197 Kan. 23, 26, 27, 34, 415 P.2d 261.
3. Subsection (a)(2) cited as providing correct procedural means to seek relief instead of mandamus proceedings (dissenting opinion). Mobil Oil Corporation v. McHenry, 200 Kan. 211, 246, 252, 436 P.2d 982.
4. Subsection (a) cited; insurance carrier which has issued uninsured motorist policy may intervene in action brought by its insured against an uninsured motorist. Rawlins v. Stanley, 207 Kan. 564, 566, 486 P.2d 840.
5. Subsection (a) liberally construed; to avoid intervention opposing party must show adequate representation of applicant's interest. Campbell American Legion v. Wade, 210 Kan. 537, 538, 539, 540, 502 P.2d 773.
6. Factors for right to intervene discussed in rezoning case; timely application not applicable until adequate representation ceases. Hukle v. City of Kansas City, 212 Kan. 627, 630, 631, 632, 512 P.2d 457.
7. Cited; intervention hereunder permitted to purchasers of land claimed by another through adverse possession. Morehead v. Parks, 213 Kan. 806, 518 P.2d 544.
8. Intervention permitted in action to appeal granting of certificate of need to intervenor pursuant to K.S.A. 65-2a07. Extendicare v. State Coordinating Council for Health Planning, 216 Kan. 527, 529, 532 P.2d 1119.
9. Attorney general motion to intervene granted in action challenging validity of K.S.A. 22-3707; section constitutional. Leek v. Theis, 217 Kan. 784, 789, 539 P.2d 304.
10. Subsection (a) mentioned; no abuse of discretion in denying motion to intervene; test stated. American States Ins. Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 218 Kan. 563, 573, 545 P.2d 399.
11. Question raised as whether section authorizes real party in interest to intervene in loss of consortium case; not determined. Albertson v. Travis, 2 Kan. App. 2d 153, 155, 576 P.2d 1090.
12. Trades Council properly allowed permissive intervention; intervention of right issue not decided since permissive intervention proper. Andersen Construction Co. v. City of Topeka, 228 Kan. 73, 82, 612 P.2d 595.
13. Intervention denied for lack of service and timely application. Wilson & Walker v. State, 230 Kan. 49, 55, 630 P.2d 1102 (1981).
14. Motion for return of garnished funds may be treated as application to intervene. Dailey v. Walden, 7 Kan. App. 2d 712, 714, 648 P.2d 258 (1982).
15. Motion to intervene in transfer hearing of juvenile proper hereunder. In re Shelton, 8 Kan. App. 2d 226, 227, 230, 654 P.2d 487 (1982).
16. No error found in permitting intervention by persons having substantial interest in case. Provance v. Shawnee Mission U.S.D. 512, 231 Kan. 636, 639, 640, 648 P.2d 710 (1982).
17. United States as federal tax lienholder had right to intervene in dispute over lien-encumbered property as to ownership. McDaniel v. Jones, 235 Kan. 93, 109, 679 P.2d 682 (1984).
18. Right to intervene under subsection (a) factors determining; liberally construed. In re Petition of City of Shawnee for Annexation of Land, 236 Kan. 1, 10, 687 P.2d 603 (1984).
19. Unincorporated association cannot be party to lawsuit; intervention must be done by individual while case or appeal time pending. Frey, Inc. v. City of Wichita, 11 Kan. App. 2d 116, 121, 715 P.2d 417 (1986).
20. No abuse of discretion in denying intervention in open meetings case (K.S.A. 75-4317 et seq.) when attorney general did not follow statutory procedure. Memorial Hospital Ass'n, Inc. v. Knutson, 239 Kan. 663, 666, 722 P.2d 1093 (1986).
21. Cited; denial of motion to intervene for failure to comply herewith examined. Robertson v. Ludwig, 12 Kan. App. 2d 571, 583, 752 P.2d 690 (1988).
22. Trial court's discretion to deny motion to intervene, scope of review examined. Mohr v. State Bank of Stanley, 244 Kan. 555, 561, 770 P.2d 466 (1989).
23. Factors involved in determining right to intervene examined; liberal construction in favor of intervention stated. Herrmann v. Board of Butler County Comm'rs, 246 Kan. 152, 155, 785 P.2d 1003 (1990).
24. Late intervention held timely where plaintiff not prejudiced nor results in additional discovery or delay of trial. Roberts v. Krupka, 246 Kan. 433, 443, 790 P.2d 422 (1990).
25. Former partner's claim against partner subsequently withdrawing from remaining partnership examined. Belt v. Shepard, 15 Kan. App. 2d 448, 452, 808 P.2d 907 (1991).
26. Cited where limitations on participation by PIP carrier's counsel following intervention to recover duplicate benefits (K.S.A. 40-3113a) and attorney fees awarded to insured's counsel affirmed. Foveaux v. Smith, 17 Kan. App. 2d 685, 691, 843 P.2d 283 (1992).
27. Trial court's denial of intervention by county commissions and appraisers in action involving statewide valuation and assessment of real property examined. State ex rel. Stephan v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 253 Kan. 412, 414, 856 P.2d 151 (1993).
28. Degrees of negligence examined where plaintiffs served dishwashing liquid rather than similar-looking alcoholic beverage. Cott v. Peppermint Twist Mgt. Co., 253 Kan. 452, 486, 856 P.2d 906 (1993).
29. Whether party served by publication only may reopen default judgment within two years of judgment examined. Bank Western v. Henderson, 255 Kan. 343, 353, 874 P.2d 632 (1994).
30. Whether intervenor is real party in interest although intervenor's motion not ruled on in state court for diversity purposes examined. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Eighmy, 849 F. Supp. 40, 42 (1994).
31. When joinder of a third-party nonparent is required under the uniform child custody jurisdiction act (K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq.) examined. In re Marriage of Osborne, 21 Kan. App. 2d 374, 377, 901 P.2d 12 (1995).
32. Underinsured motorist insurer waived right to challenge judgment by failing to timely intervene. Davis v. Prudential Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 961 F. Supp. 1496, 1499 (1997).
33. Motion to intervene denied because statute of limitations had run. Becker v. Becker, 28 Kan. App. 2d 616, 19 P.3d 794 (2001).
34. No error by court in allowing third parties to intervene as they did so timely and had substantial interest in cause of action. Farmers Group, Inc. v. Lee, 29 Kan. App. 2d 382, 28 P.3d 413 (2001).
35. Court had no jurisdiction to consider motion to intervene filed outside 10 day period for filing for new trial or, to amend judgment. Smith v. Russell, 274 Kan. 1076, 58 P.3d 698 (2002).
36. No error in denying appellant's motion to intervene. Montoy v. State, 278 Kan. 765, 101 P.3d 1158 (2005).
37. Failure to intervene effectively waived plaintiff's procedural due process claim. Continental Coal, Inc. v. Cunningham, 511 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1081 (2007).
38. Nonlender is not a contingently necessary party in a mortgage foreclosure action and is not required to be allowed to intervene. Landmark Nat'l Bank v. Kesler, 289 Kan. 528, 216 P.3d 158 (2009).
39. District court panel did not abuse its discretion in denying USD 512's untimely filed application for permissive intervention. Gannon v. State, 302 Kan. 739, 744, 357 P.3d 873 (2015).