Jones v. Fondufe

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that Dawn Reed Jones was entitled to intervene as of right in a wrongful death and survival action arising from an automobile crash that killed her son. The court concluded that the trial court incorrectly assumed any recovery would be distributed solely through the estate and that Jones had shown a potential divergence of interests and inadequate representation, warranting reversal and remand.

Holdings

1. A prospective intervenor is entitled to intervene as of right when the application is timely, the applicant has an interest relating to the property or transaction, disposition may impair or impede protection of that interest, and existing parties may not adequately represent the interest. Jones's proffer satisfied the court's solicitous standard, so the trial court erred in denying intervention.
2. The possibility of vindicating an interest in later, more burdensome litigation is insufficient to deny intervention under Rule 24(a)(2).
3. The court did not decide the permissive-intervention issue because it held that Jones was entitled to intervene as of right.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Jones satisfied the requirements for intervention as of right under Superior Court Civil Rule 24(a)(2).
2. Whether the possibility that Jones's interests would diverge from those of the existing plaintiff, particularly regarding wrongful-death damages, made the existing representation potentially inadequate.
3. Whether Jones's ability to pursue a later breach-of-fiduciary-duty action was sufficient to prevent impairment of her interests under Rule 24(a)(2).
4. Whether Jones was entitled to permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded