In Fisher v. Fisher, 546 N.W.2d 354, 358 (N.D. 1996), the court found that the children of divorcing parents did not have a right to intervene in their divorce proceedings regarding the appointment of a receiver for their closely held company, even if such appointment might affect the value of the children's shares in the company. The court's analysis begins by stating that "a 'direct' interest is one that is not 'remote' or 'contingent.'" Id. at 356.