Palomba Weingarten

MEMORANDUM

Marc and llene Weingarten appeal the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of their motion to intervene in a bankruptcy proceeding in which their parents and two qualified personal residence trusts are the named defendants. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d)(1), and we affirm.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), a proposed intervenor must demonstrate that it has a “significant protecta-ble interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action.” United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Weingartens have a contingent future interest in the property currently held in their mother’s qualified personal residence trust (the “QPRT”). A contingent future interest is a recognized estate under California law. See In re Zuber’s Estate, 146 Cal.App.2d 584 , 304 P.2d 247, 251-52 (1956). However, because the Weingar-tens’ interest in the QPRT property is revocable if their mother dies before the year 2027, it is not sufficiently “direct, non-contingent, [and] substantial” to justify intervention. Dilks v. Aloha Airlines, 642 F.2d…