OMNI NATIONAL BANK, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGIA BANKING COMPANY, CASH OUT MORTGAGE CORP., D/B/A FLORIDA BANCORP, A FLORIDA CORPORATION AND COLONIAL BANK, N.A., A NATIONAL BANKING 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.
Omni National Bank appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to intervene in a fraud case and the resulting default judgment favoring Georgia Banking Company. The appellate court reverses, holding that Omni had a direct and immediate interest in the disputed funds that satisfied the requirements for intervention under Florida law.
Omni had a direct and immediate interest in the matter in litigation—the ownership of the disputed funds—and therefore properly sought to intervene. The trial court erred in denying Omni's motion to intervene and in entering a default judgment without allowing Omni to participate.
[1] A party seeking to intervene in litigation must demonstrate an interest in the matter that is direct and immediate, such that the intervenor will gain or lose by the lega…
[2] An intervenor must accept the existing record and pleadings and cannot raise new issues in the litigation.
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“In order for a party to intervene, its interest "must be in the matter in litigation, and 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."”
Establishes the legal standard for permitting intervention in litigation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCash Out Mortgage Corp. fraudulently obtained advances totaling over $900,000 from Georgia Banking Company (GBC) between May and October 2005 and dive…
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
SUAREZ, J.
Defendant, Omni National Bank (“Omni”), appeals from an order denying its motion to intervene in the action filed by Georgia Bank Company (“GBC”) against Cash Out Mortgage Corp. (“Cash Out”) and Colonial Bank, N.A. (“Colonial”) and from the default judgment entered in favor of GBC against Cash Out. We reverse and remand.
Cash Out was in the business of locating individuals needing to borrow money to purchase real property and matching them with lending institutions willing to lend money. GBC filed suit against Cash Out alleging that, between May, 2005 and October, 2005, Cash Out defrauded GBC and stole over $900,000, which GBC claims was transferred into one or more Cash Out accounts at Colonial. GBC sought to impose a constructive trust and obtain a temporary injunction, which was granted. The court froze the Cash Out account.
Omni, another lending institution, moved to intervene also claiming ownership to the Cash Out funds at Colonial. In its Motion to Intervene, Omni alleged that Cash Out fraudulently obtained advances of more than a million dollars from Omni and diverted that money to the Cash Out account in question. The trial court denied Omni’s motion to intervene, granted a default judgment in GBC’s favor, and directed Colonial to deliver the funds to GBC. This appeal follows.
“[AJnyone claiming an interest in pending litigation may at any time be permitted to assert a 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.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.230. In order for a party to intervene, its interest “must be in the matter in litigation, and 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.” Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Carlisle, 593 So. 2d 505, 507 (Fla.1992). The intervenor must accept the record and pleadings as they exist in the litigation and the intervenor may not raise any new issues. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, Inc. v. Glisson, 531 So. 2d 996, 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (citing Williams v. Nussbaum, 419 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)); see also Coast Cities Coaches, Inc. v. Dade County, 178 So. 2d 703 (Fla.1965).
Omni accepted the pleadings as they existed and did not attempt to raise any new or competing claims in the litigation. The existing issue was ownership over the money in the Colonial account. Omni asserted that it was defrauded by Cash Out and claims that the money in the account belongs to Omni as it is money diverted by Cash Out from Omni. Riviera Club v. Belle Mead Dev. Corp., 141 Fla. 538, 194 So. 783 (1940)(intervenor cannot raise any new claims but must argue how the issues before the court relate to the intervenor); United States v. State, 179 So. 2d 890, 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)(an in-tervenor cannot contest the plaintiffs claim but may assert the intervenor’s right to the property in question).
Therefore, Omni has timely and properly brought this motion to intervene.
We reverse the trial court’s order and remand.
We also reverse the default judgment entered by the trial court. The default judgment was entered subsequent to the trial court’s denial of Omni’s rightful motion to intervene and to participate in the litigation.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bondi v. Tucker, 93 So. 3d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…" (quoting Y.H. v. F.L.H., 784 So. 2d 565, 567-68 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001))). If intervention as a party in the trial court proceedings has been disallowed in error, participation as a party can be ordered. See, e.g., Omni Mat’l Bank v. Ga. Banking Co., 951 So. 2d 1006, 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (reversing default judgment which was “entered subsequent to the trial court's denial of Omni's rightful motion to intervene”). . By court rule, all public bodies and public officers are afforded special treatment as regard…
-
Ventures Tr. 2013-I-H-R v. Asset Acquisitions & Holdings Tr., 202 So. 3d 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…. v. IMC Phosphates, Inc., 857 So. 2d 207, 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.230 (“[I]n-tervention shall be in subordination to, and in recognition of, the propriety of the main proceeding....”); Omni Nat’l Bank v. Ga. Banking Co., 951 So. 2d 1006, 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“The intervenor must accept the record and pleadings as they exist in the litigation and the intervenor may not raise any new issues”). When Asset Trust intervened in the proceedings below, Mr. Woodard had already been defa…
-
In re The Est. OF Jorge Luis Arroyo, Jr. v. Infinity Indem. Ins. Co., 211 So. 3d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…intervene, its interest must be in the matter in litigation, and 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.” Omni Nat’l Bank v. Georgia Banking Co., 951 So. 2d 1006, 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (internal quotation omitted). Importantly, a party’s asserted interest must already be at issue in the proceedings when the party seeks to intervene. Carlisle, 593 So. 2d at 507 (holding that “the interest must be that crea…
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
- Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Carlisle, 593 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1992)
- United States v. State of Fla. & Cnty. of Dade, 179 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- The Riviera Club v. Belle Mead Dev. Corp. & The Rio Vista Hotel & Improvement Co., 141 Fla. 538 (Fla. 1939)
- Hindmon v. Century Tire Sales Co., 178 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1965)
- Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n Inc. v. J.T. Glisson, 531 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Williams v. Nussbaum, 419 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)