BOCA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, LTD., APPELLANT,
v.
HOLIDAY CITY CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC., AND BOCA GRANDE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Boca Development Associates sought review of the trial court's denial of its motion to intervene filed after final judgment was entered. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, applying the established rule that intervention is generally not permitted after final judgment.
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to intervene. Intervention is an exercise of the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed unless error is clearly made to appear. The established rule is that intervention will not be allowed after final judgment, and the court found no clear abuse of discretion by the trial court.
[1] Intervention is an exercise of the chancellor's discretion, and the determination will not be disturbed unless error is clearly made to appear.
[2] Intervention will generally not be allowed after final judgment.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Intervention involves an exercise of the chancellor's discretion and his determination will not be disturbed unless error is clearly made to appear.”
Establishes the standard of review for intervention decisions—discretionary determinations are upheld unless clear error appears.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoca Development Associates filed a motion for leave to intervene in litigation involving Holiday City Civic Association, Inc. and Boca Grande Propert…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Intervention After Final Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., (Retired), Associate Judge.
Appellant seeks review of its motion for leave to intervene, filed after entry of final judgment. We affirm on the authority of Regency Highland Condominium Assoc., Inc., 405 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) and Maryland Casualty Company v. Hanson Dredging, Inc., 393 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Apropos to our disposition of this appeal is the following statement in Maryland Casualty Company v. Hanson Dredging, Inc., supra, at page 596. As to denial of the motion to intervene filed by Westinghouse, we begin our consideration with the following statement of law.
[Intervention involves an exercise of the chancellor’s discretion and his determination will not be disturbed unless error is clearly made to appear. (Citations omitted.)
Wogisch v. Tiger, 193 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966). With particular reference to attempts to intervene in the latter stages of litigation, the Supreme Court of Florida has adopted the almost universal rule that intervention will not be allowed after final judgment. Dickinson v. Segal, 219 So. 2d 435 (Fla.1969). The court referred to Wags Transportation System v. City of Miami Beach, 88 So. 2d 751 (Fla.1956), a case establishing an exception where intervention was “in the interests of justice,” but declined “to extend it beyond the facts involved there.” Dickinson v. Segal, supra at 438.
More recently the Third District Court of Appeal has applied the general rule and refused to extend the exception. Wong v. von Wersebe, 365 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978).
We are strongly inclined to the view that adherence to the rule rather than the exception will produce the best result in the great majority of cases.
Our review of the record does not clearly demonstrate an abuse of discretion.
AFFIRMED.
HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Idacon, Inc. v. Hawes, 432 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…in the great majority of cases. Id. at 596. Accord, Regency Highland Associates v. Regency Highland Condominium [*762] Association, Inc., 405 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Boca Development Associates, Ltd. v. Holiday City Civic Association, Inc., 411 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In the instant case we find that the interests of justice do not require that a creditor with an unperfected security interest be allowed to intervene several months after final judgment and judicial sale.2 Accordingly, we reve…
-
In the Interest of M.L.M., 528 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…or such a conclusion. We are also unpersuaded by appellant’s argument in point three. Cases cited by appellant to support this point, are distinguishable and not supportive. Boca Development Associates, Ltd. v. Holiday City Civic Association, Inc., 411 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Regency Highland Associates v. Regency Highland Condominium Association, Inc., v. Marie Aurriccho Fence Division, Inc., 405 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), and Maryland Casualty Company v. Hanson Dredging, Inc., 393 So. 2d 595 (…
-
Unlimited Roofing Servs., Inc. v. Garfield, 660 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Dickinson v. Segal, 219 So. 2d 435 (Fla.1969); Idacon, Inc. v. Hawes, 432 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Boca Dev. Assocs. v. Holiday City Civic Ass’n, 411 So. 2d 343, 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Wong v. Von Wersebe, 365 So. 2d 429, 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wags Transp. Sys., Inc. v. City OF Miami Beach, 88 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1956)
- Dickinson v. Segal, 219 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1969)
- Md. Cas. Co. v. Hanson Dredging, Inc., 393 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Wong v. Karsten Bodo von Wersebe, 365 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Wogisch v. Tiger, 193 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Regency Highland Assocs. v. Regency Highland Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 405 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)