mother’s motion to intervene in the parties’ divorce action where “[t]he mother was not trying to intervene in the issue of a divorce per se ...; rather, she was attempting to protect her interest in the property dispute following the divorce” and where mother alleged in her motion that she had an interest in the subject property of the action and that her ability to assert such interest would be impaired by the disposition of the property between the existing parties, husband admitted that his mother had given him money to buy the house and had not intended it as a gift, and husband’s denial that he was obliged to put the deed in his mother’s name eliminated him as an adequate representative of his mother’s interest), and Barrup v. Barrup, 198 Vt. 25, 111 A.3d 414, 420 (2014) (<HOLDING>), with Aniballi v. Aniballi, 255 Mont. 384, 842
holding that extrinsic evidence of applicability of automatic stay could not be considered because divorce decree on its face recited that trial court had jurisdiction of matter and no evidence in record of divorce proceeding affirmatively showed that automatic stay deprived trial court of jurisdiction holding that trial court did not err holding that the trial court did not err in allowing husbands mother to intervene in his divorce case on these narrow facts where she was a record owner of property over which the trial court exercised jurisdiction holding that the trial court did not err in its refusal to consider the borrowers defense of merger on appeal since the defense was outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court holding that the district court should not have exercised pendent party jurisdiction over the husbands loss of consortium claim and therefore the jurys verdict in his favor had to be reversed