State v. Bosh
2011 UT 60
| Utah | 2011Background
- MMI moved to intervene in the State's asset-preservation action under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 24.
- The State's action sought to preserve assets under Utah Code § 77-38a-601 for potential restitution.
- Assets were frozen pursuant to a preliminary injunction; a Settlement Agreement between MMI and the Defendants remained contingent on lifting the injunction.
- MMI is the assignee of victims' rights; it sought to lift the injunction to carry out the Settlement Agreement.
- The district court granted intervention as of right under Rule 24(a) and permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).
- The State appealed, challenging the intervention on timeliness, interest, representation, and potential binding effect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention as of right propertimeliness | MMI argues timely intervention given ongoing asset preservation. | State contends timeliness defeated by prior injunction entry. | Intervention timely; injunction is interlocutory and not a final judgment. |
| Intervention as of right—interest | MMI has an interest as assignee to pursue settlement and rights of victims. | State disputes MMI's direct interest and whether it relates to property. | MMI has an interest relating to the property and transaction under Rule 24(a). |
| Intervention as of right—inadequate representation | State's representation may diverge from MMI's interests; potential conflicts exist. | State contends original parties adequately represent all interests. | Intervenor shows some evidence of divergent interests; representation inadequate. |
| Intervention as of right—practical impairment | Judgment could impair MMI's ability to pursue the Settlement Agreement. | State argues no practical impairment to MMI if settled. | MMI may be bound by judgment and impairment is shown; fourth element satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parduhn v. Bennett, 112 P.3d 495 (Utah 2005) (elements of intervention as of right)
- Chatterton v. Walker, 938 P.2d 255 (Utah 1997) (liberalized Rule 24(a) standard)
- Lima v. Chambers, 657 P.2d 279 (Utah 1982) (direct interest standard for intervention)
- Jenner v. Real Estate Servs., 659 P.2d 1072 (Utah 1983) (timeliness of intervention)
- Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of Am., 404 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1972) (divergent interests and representation test)