(dc) District court rule. Rule 24 applies in the district courts.
Ala. R. Civ. P. 24
Note from the reporter of decisions: The order adopting the Committee Comments Rules 5, 15, 21, 23, 24, and 42, Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, effective February 13, 2004, is published in that volume of Alabama Reporter that contains Alabama cases from ___ So. 2d.
Committee Comments on 1973 Adoption
This rule is virtually identical with Rule 24, F.R.C.P. The only differences are the deletions of matters not relevant to state practice.
The rule is more detailed, both as to the grounds for intervention and the procedure therefor, than Code 1940, Tit. 7, § 247 and Equity Rule 37, which it supersedes. It expressly permits intervention wherever a statute gives a right to intervene, as in Code of Ala., §§ 6-6-252 (detinue), 6-6-568 (proceedings to quiet title), 6-6-150 (trial of right of property), and 35-6-21 (partition suits).
Leave of court is not required for the filing of a motion to intervene. An order authorizing intervention is, of course, necessary before the would-be intervenor becomes a party. Cowan v. Tipton, 1 F.R.D. 694 (E.D.Tenn. 1941). Thus, the technical requirement of filing an application for leave to file a petition with the petition for intervention as Exhibit "A" and said petition often being a rehash of the application is no longer necessary.
The federal counterpart of Rule 24(c) has been construed to relax the requirements for a showing of a right to intervene. An earlier version of Rule 24 contained reference to being "bound by a judgment," suggesting that the applicant was required to show an impairment of his interest by operation of the doctrine of res judicata. Now, the rule refers to impairment of interest "as a practical matter" as adequate justification for intervention. This recognizes the impediment posed by stare decisis in later litigation involving the same questions of law and fact to which the unsuccessful applicant for intervention is finally a party. This broadening is confirmed in Cascade Natural Gas v. El Paso Natural Gas, 386 U.S. 129, 87 S.Ct. 932, 17 L.Ed.2d 814 (1967), wherein several parties, including the state of California, were permitted to intervene as a matter of right in a proceeding to frame a divestiture decree in an anti-trust case. Hence, there appears to be a recognition of interests other than immediate injury or loss to property as justification for intervention.
Committee Comments to October 1, 1995, Amendment to Rule 24
The amendment is technical. No substantive change is intended.
Committee Comments Adopted February 13, 2004, to Rule 24
In regard to Rule 24(a)(1), note that § 6-6-227, Code of Alabama 1975, provides: "In any proceeding which involves the validity of a municipal ordinance, or franchise, such municipality shall be made a party and shall be entitled to be heard . .. . "Also, if an ordinance or a statute is alleged to be unconstitutional, § 6-6-227 requires that the attorney general be served and be entitled to be heard. See the Committee Comments Adopted February 13, 2004, to Rule 5 regarding service on the attorney general in a case in which the constitutionality of an ordinance or a statute is being challenged.