SUPERIOR FENCE & RAIL OF NORTH FLORIDA, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
JAMES O. LUCAS, III AND DOROTHEA Y. LUCAS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
Superior Fence & Rail of North Florida and Christopher Johnson sought certiorari review of a trial court's order denying their motion to intervene in a landlord-tenant dispute. The court affirmed the denial, holding that the petitioners lacked a direct and immediate legal interest in the litigation, and clarified that denials of motions to intervene are reviewable by appeal rather than certiorari.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to intervene, finding no direct and immediate legal interest on the part of the petitioners. The court also held that denials of motions to intervene are reviewable by direct appeal as a matter of right by plenary appeal, rather than by certiorari, overruling prior conflicting case law.
[1] The denial of a motion to intervene is reviewable by appeal as a matter of right.
[2] Intervention is appropriate only when the intervenor has a direct and immediate interest in the litigation such that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 is appropriate only when the intervenor has a direct and immediate interest in the litigation such that the intervenor "will either gain or lose by the direct legal [*105] operation and effect of the judgment."”
Establishes the legal standard for intervention that the court applied to deny Superior Fence & Rail's motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSuperior Fence & Rail of North Florida, Inc. and Christopher Johnson filed a motion to intervene in a landlord-tenant dispute between James O. Lucas, …
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
Superior Fence & Rail of North Florida, Inc. and Christopher Johnson seek certio-rari review of the trial court’s order denying their motion to intervene in a landlord-tenant dispute. As explained hereafter, we treat their petition as a direct appeal of a final order and affirm. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(k); In re S.N.W., 912 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
The allowance of intervention is subject to the trial court’s discretion. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 483 So.2d 524, 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Intervention is appropriate only when the intervenor has a direct and immediate interest in the litigation such that the intervenor “will either gain or lose by the direct legal *105operation and effect of the judgment.” Harbor Specialty Ins. Co. v. Schwartz, 932 So.2d 383, 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quoting Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Carlisle, 593 So.2d 505, 507 (Fla.1992)). Having carefully reviewed the record, we find no error in the trial judge’s determination that Superior and Johnson have no direct and immediate legal interest in the underlying litigation.
We take this opportunity to clarify deci-sional law from this Court regarding whether the denial of a motion to intervene is reviewed by certiorari or appeal. In at least two cases, In re J.S., 404 So.2d 1144 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), and Grudzinski v. Voyer, 654 So.2d 675 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), we reviewed the denial of a motion to intervene by certiorari. However, in Hart v. Atlantic International Investment Corp., 513 So.2d 768 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), and Vanguard, Insurance Co. v. Townsend, 544 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), receded from on other grounds by Allstate Insurance Co. v. Conde, 595 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), we reviewed such denials by appeal.
We believe that an order denying a motion to intervene is appealable as a matter of right, by plenary appeal, because the order constitutes a final determination of the proceeding as to the parties seeking to intervene. In re S.N.W., 912 So.2d at 370; J.R. v. R.M., 679 So.2d 64, 65 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see also City of Dania v. Broward County, 658 So.2d 163, 164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Citibank N.A. v. Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co., 398 So.2d 984, 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). We recede from our prior case law holding that the denial of a motion to intervene is reviewable by certiorari. Instead, we hold that the denial of a motion to intervene is reviewable by appeal.1
AFFIRMED.
MONACO, C.J., GRIFFIN, SAWAYA, PALMER, ORFINGER, TORPY, LAWSON, EVANDER, COHEN and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Khilena Adhin v. First Horizon Home Loans, 44 So. 3d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…of Davie, 472 So. 2d 458, 459 (Fla. 1985); Y.H. v. F.L.H., 784 So. 2d 565, 567-68 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Ordinarily, a trial court’s denial of a motion to intervene is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Superior Fence & Rail of N. Fla. v. Lucas, 35 So. 3d 104, 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). However, because this appeal concerns pure questions of law, we review the matter de novo. See Ellis v. Hunter, 3 So. 3d 373, 379 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). [*1250] There is a strong presumption in favor of the validity of all le…
-
Jose and Migdalia Quinones v. Se. Inv. Grp. Corp., 138 So. 3d 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…. Cantera v. Dist. Court of Appeal, Third Dist, 555 So. 2d 360 (Fla.1990); Scott v. Darling, 118 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Hawks v. Walker, 409 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Appeal dismissed. . See Superior Fence & Rail of N. Fla. v. Lucas, 35 So. 3d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); In re S.N.W., 912 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Y.H. v. F.L.H., 784 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); City of Dania v. Broward Cnty., 658 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).…
-
Carlisle v. U.S. Bank, 225 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…thority to reconsider and modify its interlocutory orders,” AC Holdings 2006, Inc. v. McCarty, 985 So. 2d 1123, 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), and as “an order granting intervention is necessarily interlocutory,” Superior Fence & Rail of N. Fla. v. Lucas, 35 So. 3d 104, 105 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citing In re J.P., 12 So. 3d 253, 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)), the trial court had the inherent authority to reconsider and modify its order granting leave to intervene.1 [*895] We now address whether Carlisle meets the li…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Carlisle, 593 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1992)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Conde, 595 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- In the Interest of S.N.W. v. S.C.W. & Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 912 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Badger v. State, 398 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Vanguard Ins. Co. v. Townsend, 544 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- In the Interest of J. S. v. Seekell, 404 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- In the Interest of J.P. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. Ad Litem Program, 12 So. 3d 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- J.R. and A.R. v. R.M. & S.M. Ad Litem & Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 679 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- City OF Dania v. Broward Cnty., 658 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Harbor Specialty Ins. Co. v. Schwartz, 932 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)