has an interest in contesting subject matter jurisdiction, Dichter’s interest may be harmed if Dichter is not permitted to intervene on appeal. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a). “The timeliness of a motion to intervene is assessed in light of all the circumstances, including the length of time since the applicant knew of his interest in the case, prejudice to the existing parties, prejudice to the applicant, and the existence of any unusual circumstances.” Utah Ass’n of Counties v. Clinton, 255 F.3d 1246, 1250 (10th Cir.2001) (quotation omitted). Prior to the district court’s entry of final judgment it was reasonable for Dichter to rely on Appellees to argue the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. Cf. United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U.S. 385, 394-96, 97 S.Ct. 2464, 53 L.Ed.2d 423 (1977) (<HOLDING>). Although Elliott asserts that allowing
holding that appellate timetable is extended by filing postjudgment motion or other instrument that is 1 timely filed and 2 assails the trial courts judgment holding that absent a timely postjudgment motion the trial court has no jurisdiction to alter amend or vacate a final judgment holding harringtons first pcr application was timely filed holding that the trial court erred in denying as untimely a postjudgment motion to intervene filed promptly after judgment and noting that this holding was consistent with several decisions of the federal courts permitting postjudgment intervention for the purpose of appeal holding that postjudgment application for intervention was timely