Rule 24.Intervention.
Last verified July 6, 2026
Full Text of Rule 24
Amendment History
[Amended eff.10-1-95.]
Committee Comments
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 of Ala., 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, § 66- 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.
Note from the reporter of decisions: The order adopting the Committee Comments to 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 865 So.2d.
Plain-English Summary
Most lawsuits start with just a plaintiff and a defendant, but plenty of other people can have a stake in how the case comes out. A lienholder, an insurer, a co-owner of disputed property, or a government agency enforcing a statute might all have real interests riding on the outcome even though nobody named them in the complaint. Rule 24 gives those outsiders a way in. It lets a nonparty file a motion asking the court for permission to join the case as a full participant, with the right to file pleadings, take part in discovery, and argue their position, rather than sitting on the sidelines hoping the existing parties look out for them.
The rule splits intervention into two tracks. Under intervention of right, the court must let someone in if a statute gives them that right, or if they can show a stake in the property or transaction at issue, a real risk that the case will impair their ability to protect that stake, and no existing party who will adequately look out for it. Under permissive intervention, the court has discretion to let someone join if a statute allows conditional intervention or if their claim or defense shares a common question of law or fact with the main case; here the judge weighs the benefit of bringing the new party in against the delay and disruption it might cause to the parties already litigating. A government agency enforcing a regulation can sometimes intervene under this permissive track even when it has no direct financial stake in the dispute.
Getting in the door takes more than showing up and asking. A would-be intervenor must move promptly, since courts routinely turn away motions filed late in the case, especially once a hearing or trial is close. The motion must spell out the grounds for intervention and come with a proposed pleading, such as a complaint or answer, laying out the claim or defense the intervenor wants to bring. Filing that pleading matters: it is what puts the intervenor's position before the court, rather than leaving the request to intervene as a bare, unsupported ask. Once the court grants intervention, the new party is bound by the case going forward just like anyone who was there from the start.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between intervention of right and permissive intervention?
Intervention of right means the court must allow the nonparty in once the requirements are met — typically a real stake in the property or transaction at issue that the case could impair and that no existing party adequately protects. Permissive intervention means the court has discretion to allow the nonparty in, usually because their claim or defense shares a common question of law or fact with the pending case, and the judge weighs any delay or prejudice the intervention would cause.
How do I ask to intervene in a case that is already pending?
You file a motion to intervene and serve it on all existing parties, stating the grounds for intervention. You must attach a proposed pleading, such as a complaint or answer, showing the claim or defense you want to raise. There is no separate requirement to first ask the court's permission just to file the motion.
Is there a deadline for filing a motion to intervene?
Rule 24 does not set a fixed deadline, but it requires the application to be timely, and courts look at how far the case has progressed, how long the applicant knew about its interest, and whether letting the applicant in now would delay or prejudice the parties already in the case. Waiting until close to a hearing or trial is risky and often results in the motion being denied.
Can a government agency intervene in a private lawsuit?
Yes. When a party's claim or defense relies on a statute, executive order, or regulation that a government officer or agency administers, that officer or agency may seek permission to intervene, even without the kind of direct property interest that intervention of right usually requires.
What happens if my interest is already being represented by one of the existing parties?
If an existing party is already adequately protecting your interest, you do not qualify for intervention of right, since that track requires showing that no current party will look out for your stake. You might still be able to seek permissive intervention if your claim or defense shares a common question with the case, but the court has discretion to deny it.