Ahlgren v. Colvin-Weber Realty & Investment Co.

KELLY, Judge.

Appellants, the judgment debtors, take this appeal from an order of the trial court denying what appellants denominated an “Interventiona petition whereby they sought to intervene in a garnishment proceeding. We affirm.

On appeal they present one point: that the trial court erred in dismissing their motion to intervene. They contend that they were proper parties to intervene under Rule 90.08, V.A.M.R.1 ; and if not, then the trial court should have construed their pleading as a motion to quash, Rule 76.60, and permitted them to remain in the garnishment proceeding.

Appellants were…