not diverted in a manner that will defeat the purpose of the trust. The MTCA urges us to accept the district court’s finding that the Seipels’ “concession” that they have no interest in the merits of the litigation leads inexorably to the conclusion that they lack a sufficient stake in the litigation. According to the MTCA, by their own admission: [t]he Seipels have no interest in the merits of the Board’s lawsuit against these Defendants; they are not privy to the underlying documents, and have no personal loiowl-edge of the merits of that case, or the grounds for the dispute, other than that their 2 units were not repaired and restored. And accordingly, they did not then, and they do not now, seek to intervene so as to litigate the merits of the underlying suit. App., Vol. I ir.1980) (<HOLDING>). In this case, while the Seipels may not have
holding that a a representative plaintiff acts as fiduciary for the others requiring the representative to act in the best interest of class holding that when the facts of a robbery are undisputed the imposition of the enhancement is a question of the application of the guidelines to be reviewed de novo holding that a representative of the hispanic community has the right to intervene for the limited purpose of presenting evidence on the question of de jure segregation of hispanics holding that the the statement of the purpose of the law in question in the committee report is not conclusive and reiterating that the question is whether the law is reasonably calculated to achieve a legitimate police power purpose holding that the question whether a party has agreed to submit an issue to arbitration is a question of law requiring de novo review