Appellees' motion to intervene was also untimely, as they waited over one year and eight months to file their application despite obvious knowledge of Harris's case. See Prudential Ins Co of America v Oak Park Sch Dist, 142 Mich App 430, 434; 370 NW2d 20 (1985) ("[A]n intervenor must be diligent, and any unreasonable delay after knowledge of the action will justify a denial of intervention where no satisfactory excuse is shown for the delay."). Further, appellees did not have standing to intervene.
2 Longhofer, Michigan Court Rules Practice (5th ed), ยง 2209.1, p 113. "[A]n intervenor must be diligent, and any unreasonable delay after knowledge of the action will justify a denial of intervention where no satisfactory excuse is shown for the delay." Prudential Ins Co of America v Oak Park Sch Dist, 142 Mich App 430, 434; 370 NW2d 20 (1985). In Davenport v Grosse Pointe Farms Bd of Zoning Appeals, 210 Mich App 400; 534 NW2d 143 (1995), this Court considered whether the circuit court correctly denied intervention to the neighbors of a party seeking a zoning variance.