Hopper v. Estate of Goard, 2017 Alas. LEXIS 4

Terry Stahlman (ward) and James Goard were long-time business partners; litigation arose after alleged misappropriation by Goard. Goard died and his estate continued the suit.
A settlement agreement, purportedly signed by Stahlman and notarized May 30, 2014, led to final judgment entered August 22, 2014.
On May 27, 2014, Elizabeth Rollins filed for conservatorship for Stahlman; temporary co-conservators Rollins and Carol Hopper were appointed in August 2014 and conservatorship became permanent in May 2015.
The co-conservators only learned of the settlement/judgment in May 2015 and moved to intervene and to reopen/reconsider the settlement on grounds Stahlman lacked capacity, the signature was fraudulent, and they had not been notified. The estate did not oppose.
The superior court denied the motions without explanation; the co-conservators appealed only the denial of intervention. The Supreme Court reviewed whether intervention as of right under Alaska R. Civ. P. 24(a) was required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hopper/Rollins)	Defendant's Argument (Estate of Goard)	Held
Whether co-conservators were entitled to intervene as of right under Alaska R. Civ. P. 24(a)	Conservators have a direct, substantial, protectable interest to sue/defend for an incompetent ward; Stahlman lacked capacity and they were not notified of the settlement so their interests were impaired and not adequately represented	(No appearance/argument below or on appeal contesting timeliness or representation)	Court held they satisfied the four Weidner factors (timely, interest, impairment, inadequate representation) and thus intervention as of right was required
Whether denial of the motion to intervene was harmless error	Denial prevented them from seeking relief from judgment (Rule 60(b)) based on alleged fraud, incapacity, or void judgment	Estate did not oppose; no showing denial was harmless	Court held denial was not harmless because, if permitted to intervene, co-conservators could have sought Rule 60(b) relief and alleged facts might warrant reopening and an evidentiary hearing

State v. Weidner, 684 P.2d 103 (Alaska 1984) (articulates four-part test for intervention as of right)
Alaskans for a Common Language, Inc. v. Kritz, 3 P.3d 906 (Alaska 2000) (rules favor liberal construction of intervention rule)
Harvey v. Cook, 172 P.3d 794 (Alaska 2007) (standard of review where timeliness and facts are undisputed)
Scammon Bay Ass’n v. Ulak, 126 P.3d 138 (Alaska 2005) (failed intervenor may appeal only denial of intervention)