Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, Second Division
DONNA J. ROWELL, Appellant,
RAYMOND J. KILLION, III; Respondent, AUTOMOBILE CLUB INTER-INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Respondent.
from the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri Honorable
Thomas Clark Fincham, Judge
Anthony Rex Gabbert, P.J., Thomas H. Newton, and Gary D.
H. Newton, Judge
Donna Rowell appeals a Platte County circuit court judgment
granting the Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange's
motion to intervene and motion to set aside the judgment. We
Donna Rowell, filed a petition for damages against Raymond
Killion, III, whose negligence caused a car accident
resulting in Ms. Rowell's injuries. A bench trial was
held on August 19, 2016. The court entered its judgment on
the same date in favor of Ms. Rowell in the amount of $208,
137.14. Ms. Rowell filed a receipt and acknowledgment of
payment after she received $1, 000.00 in partial payment from
Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange (Auto Club), filed a
post-judgment motion to intervene on September 7, 2016. The
hearing on the motion was held on October 7, 2016. The trial
court, via docket entry, granted the motion to intervene on
October 14, 2016.
Auto Club then filed a motion to set aside the judgment on
October 28, 2016. A hearing on the motion was held on
December 16, 2016. The trial court granted the motion to set
aside the judgment on January 3, 2017.
Rowell filed her motion to denominate as a judgment the
court's order granting the motion to set aside on January
10, 2017. On February 3, 2017, the trial court entered its
judgment granting the motion to set aside. Ms. Rowell filed
her notice of appeal on March 13, 2017.
first point, Ms. Rowell argues that the Auto Club should not
have been allowed to intervene because the trial court lost
jurisdiction and authority thirty days after the August 19,
2016, judgment was entered.
Intervention is permitted by Rule 52.12(a) as a matter of
right or by Rule 52.12(b), which provides for intervention by
permission of the court. A trial court's decision
regarding intervention as a matter of right will be affirmed
unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is
against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously
declares or applies the law.
Johnson v. State, 366 S.W.3d 11, 20 (Mo. banc 2012).
Three rules work together to govern
interventions. First, Rule 52.12, which provides:
(a) Intervention of Right. Upon timely
application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an
action: (1) when a statute of this state confers an
unconditional right to intervene or (2) when the applicant
claims an interest relating to the property or transaction
that is the subject of the action and the applicant is so
situated that the disposition of the action may as a
practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability
to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest
is adequately represented by existing parties.
(b) Permissive intervention. Upon timely
application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an
action: (1) when a statute of this state confers a
conditional right to intervene; or (2) when an
applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a
question of law or fact in common; or (3) when the validity
of a statute, regulation or constitutional provision of this
state, or an ordinance or regulation of a governmental
subdivision thereof, affecting the public interest, is drawn
in question in any action to which the state or governmental
subdivision thereof and the state or governmental subdivision
or an officer, agency or employee thereof is not a party, the
court may in its discretion notify the chief legal officer of
the state or governmental subdivision may in the discretion
of the court be permitted to intervene, upon proper
(c) Procedure. A person desiring to
intervene shall serve a motion upon all parties affected
thereby. The motion shall state the grounds therefor, and
shall be accompanied by a pleading setting forth the claim or
defense for which intervention is sought. The same procedure
shall be ...