{¶ 18} The granting or denial of a motion to intervene rests with the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent the showing of an abuse of discretion. Peterman v. Pataskala (1997), 122 Ohio App.3d 758, 761. (Citation omitted.) "The term "abuse of discretion" connotes more than an error of law or of judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.'"
Therefore, under Civ.R. 24(A)(2), she must meet four conditions in order to intervene in the declaratory-judgment action: (1) she must have an interest relating to the availability of liability coverage under the insurance contract to the circumstances in her tort action, (2) there must be a possibility that disposition of the declaratory-judgment action will impair or impede her ability to protect that interest, (3) there must be a possibility that the existing parties will not adequately protect that interest, and (4) her motion to intervene must be timely filed. See Peterman v. Pataskala (1997), 122 Ohio App.3d 758, 760-761, 702 N.E.2d 965. {¶ 6} In the instant case, the timeliness of the motion to intervene is not a contested issue.
{¶ 12} In reviewing an order denying a motion to intervene, an appellate court considers whether the trial court abused its discretion. In re Hoffman, 5th Dist. Nos. 2002CA0419, 2002CA0422, 2003-Ohio-1241, at ¶ 20, citing Peterman v. Pataskala (1997), 122 Ohio App.3d 758, 761. An abuse of discretion is more than an error of law or judgment.
The standard for intervention under Civ.R. 24(A) is as follows: 1) the intervenor must claim an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of action; 2) 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; 3) the intervenor must demonstrate that his or her interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties; and 4) the motion to intervene must be timely. See Peterman v. Village of Pataskala (1997), 122 Ohio App.3d 758, 760-761. Failure to meet any one of the elements in Civ.R. 24(A) will result in denial of the right to intervene.
It is well-established that the grant or denial of a motion to intervene pursuant to either Civ.R 24(A) or Civ.R. 24(B) rests within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent the showing of an abuse of discretion. Peterman v. Pataskala (1997), 122 Ohio App.3d 758, 761; Williams v. Avon (1977), 52 Ohio App.2d 210, 212. Abuse of discretion connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.
Ohio courts construe Civ.R. 24 liberally in favor of intervention. See, e.g., State ex rel. Strategic Capital Investors, Ltd. v. McCarthy (1998), 126 Ohio App.3d 237; Peterman v. Pataskala (1997), 122 Ohio App.3d 758; ICSC Partners, L.P. v. Kenwood Plaza L.P. (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 278; Blackburn v. Hamoudi (1986), 29 Ohio App.3d 350. In this case, neither the parties nor the trial court contest Great Midwest's assertion that it qualified to intervene as of right under Civ.R. 24(A) because (1) it has an interest relating to the subject of the action; (2) the disposition of the action in Great Midwest's absence could impair or impede its ability to protect that interest; and (3) Great Midwest's interest was not adequately represented by existing parties.
Oakman v. City of Eveleth, 163 Minn. 100, 203 N.W. 514, 517 (1925).See also Hous. Redevelopment Auth. of Minneapolis v. City of Minneapolis, 293 Minn. 227, 198 N.W.2d 531, 536-37 (1972) (stating a proposed city charter amendment that would have allowed citizens to refer actions such as the settlement of lawsuits could create a "chaotic situation" in city government); Peterman v. Village of Pataskala, 122 Ohio App.3d 758, 702 N.E.2d 965, 967 (1997) (recognizing a settlement prevented a municipal referendum as it was not a "legislative action"). The dissent's self-generated contention to allow referral of litigation settlements could create "chaotic situations" extending far beyond the facts of this case.
{¶ 17} Based on the plain language found in Civ.R. 24(A), intervention of right requires the intervenor to satisfy four elements: (1) "the intervenor must claim an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of action;" (2) "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;" (3) "the intervenor must demonstrate that his or her interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties;" and (4) "the motion to intervene must be timely." Classic Props., Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Goshen Twp., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2001-05-051, 2002-Ohio-287, citing Peterman v. Pataskala, 122 Ohio App.3d 758, 760-761 (5th Dist.1997). "Failure of the party seeking to intervene to satisfy each requirement of Civ.R. 24(A) * * * will result in denial of the right to intervene."
{¶ 13} Although motions to intervene should be liberally construed, the standard of review of a ruling on a motion to intervene, whether as of right or by permission, is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Grogan v. T.W. Grogan Co., 143 Ohio App.3d 548, 560, 758 N.E.2d 702 (8th Dist.2001), citing Peterman v. Pataskala, 122 Ohio App.3d 758, 761, 702 N.E.2d 965 (5th Dist.1997). {¶ 14} A party seeking intervention of right must show: (1) the application is timely; (2) the intervenor claims an interest relating to the subject of the action; (3) the intervenor is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his or her ability to protect that interest; and (4) the existing parties do not adequately represent his or her interest. Grogan at id., citing Widder & Widder v. Kutnick, 113 Ohio App.3d 616, 624, 681 N.E.2d 977 (8th Dist.1996).
{¶ 19} While a motion to intervene should be liberally construed, the standard of review of a ruling on a motion to intervene, whether as of right or by permission, is whether the trial court abused its discretion. State ex rel. Merrill v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources , 130 Ohio St.3d 30, 2011-Ohio-4612, 955 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 41 ; Grogan v. T.W. Grogan Co. , 143 Ohio App.3d 548, 560, 758 N.E.2d 702 (8th Dist.2001), citing Peterman v. Pataskala , 122 Ohio App.3d 758, 761, 702 N.E.2d 965 (5th Dist.1997) ; Brady v. Benzing , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 81894, 2003-Ohio-3354, 2003 WL 21469584, ¶ 5 (on review of intervention of right). {¶ 20} Intervention, whether permissive or as a matter of right, is specifically provided for in the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure.