FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT, ETC., ET AL., 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.
Florida Wildlife Federation and Save Our St. Johns River sought to intervene in a lawsuit by the Board of Trustees asserting ownership of approximately 250 acres of land fronting Lake Poinsett. The trial court denied their motion to intervene, and the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that while the organizations had a direct and immediate interest, the Trustees as a responsible governmental entity would adequately protect their interests.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to intervene. Although the appellants demonstrated a direct and immediate interest in the case, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in finding that the Trustees, as a responsible governmental entity, would fully protect the appellants' interests, and there is no absolute right to intervention.
[1] A party seeking to intervene must demonstrate a direct and immediate interest in the litigation that will be affected by the outcome of the case.
[2] A court must exercise sound discretion in determining whether to permit intervention after finding that the requisite interest exists.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“First, the trial court must determine that the interest asserted is appropriate to support intervention.... Once the trial court determines that the requisite interest exists, it must exercise its sound discretion to determine whether to permit intervention.”
Establishes the two-step test for intervention decisions that the trial court properly applied.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund filed a two-count complaint against owners of approximately 250 acres of land fronting La…
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 Direct And Immediate Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Appellants, Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. and Save Our St.- Johns River, Inc., appeal from an order denying their motions to intervene in a lawsuit over the ownership of approximately 250 acres of land fronting Laké Poinsett in Brevard County. The Board of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (“Trustees”), the state agency vested with title to all sovereignty lands underlying navigable water bodies held by the state in trust for the use and benefit of the public, asserted that the disputed land was located below the ordinary high water mark of the lake. The Trustees filed a two-count complaint asserting claims for trespass, damages, and ejectment. The appellants unsuccessfully sought to intervene pursuant to Rule 1.230, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.1 They argued they had a direct and immediate interest in the controversy and the Trustees would not adequately protect their interest: The Trustees did not oppose the motion to intervene and have filed a brief in favor of the appellants’ motions to intervene.
On appeal, the appellants argue that the trial court abused its discretion by denying intervention.
We affirm.
In Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Carlisle, 593 So. 2d 505 (Fla.1992), the Florida Supreme Court established a two-step analysis to decide if the trial court should grant a motion to intervene. The court wrote:
First, the trial court must determine that the interest asserted is appropriate to support intervention.... Once the trial court determines that the requisite interest exists, it must exercise its sound discretion to determine whether to permit intervention.
Id., at 507. See also Morgareidge v. Howey, 75 Fla. 234, 78 So. 14 (1918) (finding the interest necessary to entitle the right to intervene must be of such a direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.) The trial court correctly applied the two-step analysis established by Union Central. Although the court determined that the appellants showed a direct and immediate interest in the case, the trial court also found that the Trustees, a responsible governmental entity, will fully protect the appellants’ interest. See South-land Life Ins. Co. v. Abelove, 556 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Charlotte County Development Commission v. Lord, 180 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).
Moreover, intervention is a matter of a court’s discretion; though the trial court may liberally grant the motion, there is no absolute right to intervention. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.230; John G. Grubbs, Inc. v. Suncoast Excavating, Inc., 594 So. 2d 346, 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).
We find that the appellants’ interests are protected by the Trustees.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court, finding there was no abuse of discretion. See Burt v. Richards, 541 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Charlotte County Development Commission v. Lord, 180 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).
AFFIRMED.
COBB, J., and ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge, concur. . Rule 1.230 reads:
Anyone claiming an interest in pending litigation may at any time be permitted to assert his right by intervention, but the intervention shall be in subordination to, and in recognition of, the propriety of the main proceeding, unless otherwise ordered by the court in its discretion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kramer A. Litvak v. Scylla Props., LLC, 946 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…nal decree settled the issues between the parties. First, we have a class suit....”). Citizens argues the general proposition that there is no absolute right to intervention. See Fla. Wildlife Fed’n, Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of the Internal Improvement, 707 So. 2d 841, 842 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (affirming denial of a motion to intervene where, although would-be intervenors showed a direct and immediate interest in the case, the main party in the case was able fully to protect their interests). But Citizens overlook…
-
Fasig v. Fla. Soc'y OF Pathologists, 769 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed without a showing of abuse of discretion. See Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Carlisle, 593 So. 2d 505 (Fla.1992); Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Internal Improvement, 707 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); John G. Grubbs, Inc. v. Suncoast Excavating, Inc., 594 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). In Union Central Life Insurance, 593 So. 2d at 507, the Florida Supreme Court: established a two-step analysis to decide if the trial court…
-
Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. Brunner, 707 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…discretion, deny a motion for intervention when it is clear that an existing party can adequately protect the proposed intervenor’s asserted interest. See Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 707 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). DCFS argues that the trial court erred by denying its motion to intervene, on three bases: (1) DCFS will lose substantial operating funds if appellees prevail; (2) DCFS’ interpretation of section 561.19(5) diverges from that of…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Morgareidge v. Howey, 75 Fla. 234 (Fla. 1918)
- Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Carlisle, 593 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1992)
- Med Rehab Therapy Ctr. Inc. v. Direct Gen. Ins. Co., 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1700 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- Southland Life Ins. Co. v. Abelove, 556 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- John G. Grubbs, Inc. v. Suncoast Excavating, Inc., 594 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Charlotte Cnty. Dev. Comm'n v. Lord, 180 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Burt v. Richards, 541 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)