Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Altavista Investments, LLC v. Makeeva, 226 Conn. App. 175 (2024)

Citation
Altavista Investments, LLC v. Makeeva, 226 Conn. App. 175 (2024)
Parent Document
Altavista Investments, LLC v. Makeeva, 226 Conn. App. 175 (2024)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2024-06-11

Other Sections in This Document (39)

Full Text

1,958 chars
‘‘In order for a proposed intervenor to establish that it
         is entitled to intervene as a matter of right, the proposed
         intervenor must satisfy a well established four element
         conjunctive test: [T]he motion to intervene must be
         timely, the movant must have a direct and substantial
         interest in the subject matter of the litigation, the mov-
         ant’s interest must be impaired by disposition of the
         litigation without the movant’s involvement and the
         movant’s interest must not be represented adequately
         parties be brought in. If a person not a party has an interest or title which
         the judgment will affect, the court, on his application, shall direct him to
         be made a party.’ Accord Practice Book § 9-18; see also General Statutes
         § 52-108 and Practice Book § 9-19 (allowing new parties to be brought in).’’
         BNY Western Trust v. Roman, 295 Conn. 194, 203–204 n.7, 990 A.2d 853
         (2010).
            9
              See King v. Sultar, 253 Conn. 429, 435–36, 754 A.2d 782 (2000) (reas-
         serting that denial of motion to intervene filed by person with colorable
         claim to intervention as matter of right is final judgment for purposes of
         appeal and holding that proposed intervenor has party status for purposes
         of § 52-263).
            10
               ‘‘A colorable claim is one that is superficially well founded but that may
         ultimately be deemed invalid . . . . For a claim to be colorable, the [propo-
         nent of the claim] need not convince the trial court that he necessarily
         will prevail; he must demonstrate simply that he might prevail.’’ (Citation
         omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Santi-
         ago G., supra, 325 Conn. 231.
0, 0                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 9