Miller v. Miller

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 1886

Syllabus

Intervention Civ.R. 24(A) timeliness abuse of discretion final judgment necessary party Civ.R. 19(A) Uniform Transfer to Minors Act (\UTMA\) R.C. 5814.01 et seq. shareholder derivative action. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the proposed intervenor's motions to intervene and vacate. The intervenor's motion was untimely: it was filed nearly one year after final judgment, the intervenor availed herself of an alternative remedy, she knew or should have known of the proposed settlement agreement prior to final judgment, her interest as a lienholder was not impaired, and the prejudice to the existing parties is substantial. For the same reasons, the intervenor's claim that the parties violated the shareholder derivative action rule also fails. The intervenor is not a necessary party. The UTMA does not apply and therefore the probate court does not have exclusive jurisdiction.