Tyler v. Tyler

• Decision Date: 23 May 2023
• Docket Number: 23-P-152
• Parties: JOHN TYLER v. MELISSA TYLER.[1]
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

1

JOHN TYLER v. MELISSA TYLER.^[1]

No. 23-P-152

Appeals Court of Massachusetts

May 23, 2023

Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass.App.Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass.App.Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

Meade Englander &Walsh, JJ.^[2]

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

In relation to a divorce action between John Tyler (Tyler) and Melissa Tyler, now known as Lady Melissa Taylor Morganite (Morganite), 154 Maverick LLC (the LLC) sought to intervene as a matter of right under Mass. R. Civ. P. 24 (a) (2), 365 Mass. 769 (1974). A judge of the Probate and Family Court denied the motion to intervene, and the LLC now appeals. The LLC also makes other arguments relating to other judgments made by the Probate and Family Court. For the reasons below we affirm the denial of the LLC's motion to intervene and decline to address the LLC's other arguments.

Background.

We summarize the relevant background as follows. Tyler and Morganite were married in 2004. In May of 2011, Tyler and Morganite formed and became the sole members of the LLC, a company tasked with owning and operating the commercial property of 154 Maverick Street.

Tyler and Morganite were parties to the divorce action, in which the ownership of the LLC was contested. As part of that action, the judge, with the agreement of the parties, appointed a special master, to first determine the validity of a prenuptial agreement and the relevant law governing the agreement before making recommendations on the divorce and counterclaim. The special master made recommendations to the Probate and Family Court judge concerning the validity of the prenuptial agreement and the applicable law, and then recommended that certain assets, including the LLC, be equally distributed between the parties in accordance with the parties' prenuptial agreement. In response to the special master's recommendations, the LLC filed the motion to intervene, arguing that "[i]ntervention is necessary to protect the LLC's interests in corporate property, control and governance, and to preserve its limited liability status and its viability." The Probate and Family Court judge denied the LLC's motion to intervene, adopted the findings of the special master, and ordered the special master to "proceed forthwith with the division of marital assets."

Discussion.

1. Motion to intervene.

We first address the LLC's arguments concerning the motion to intervene, because if we affirm its denial, the LLC is not a party to this action and thus cannot appeal judgments made in this case. Randolph v. Commonwealth, 488 Mass. 1, 6 (2021) (outside of limited exceptions, only parties to lawsuit, or those who properly become parties, may appeal adverse judgment). To be able to intervene as a matter of right, the LLC must have (a) made a timely application, (b) claimed an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action, and (c) been so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede their ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest was adequately represented by existing parties. See rule 24 (a) (2). "Whether the prospective intervener has met 'the requirements for intervention is a question of law,' and therefore we review the ruling de novo." Beacon Residential Mgt., LP v. R.P., 477 Mass. 749, 753 (2017), quoting Commonwealth v. Fremont Inv. &Loan, 459 Mass. 209, 217 (2011). The LLC made a timely application and claimed an interest relating to the property, which was the subject of the action, making the only issue before us the third requirement, whether the disposition of the action may impede their interest unless their interest was adequately represented by the existing parties.

On appeal, the interests that the LLC claims may be impacted by the disposition of this divorce action are its corporate independence and status, and its assets. The LLC has failed to establish that the disposition of the action...