CHARRY
v.
IN RE: TORRES V. GONZALEZ
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.
A trial court's denial of a motion to intervene is affirmed when there is no transcript of the hearing, as the appellate court cannot determine whether the trial court abused its discretion without the record of proceedings.
[1] When the record on appeal lacks a transcript of the hearing on a motion to intervene, an appellate court cannot determine whether the trial court abused its discretion an…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The standard of review of an order on a motion to intervene is abuse of discretion.”
Citing the applicable standard for reviewing motions to intervene
Anna M. Charry appealed the trial court's order denying her motion to intervene in a case between Mariana Torres and Alexis Gonzalez. Although a heari…
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 Motion To Intervene cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed January 23, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D18-1014 Lower Tribunal No. 17-9898 ________________ Anna M. Charry, Appellant, vs. In Re: Mariana Torres v. Alexis Gonzalez, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mavel Ruiz, Judge. Todd Ostegard, for appellant. Kula & Associates, P.A., and Elliot B. Kula and Ashley P. Singrossi, for appellee Mariana Torres. Before LOGUE and SCALES, JJ., and LUCK, Associate Judge. LOGUE, J.
Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order denying her motion to intervene following a hearing. We review the denial of the motion to intervene for an abuse of discretion. See Abujasen v. Dreke, 118 So. 3d 235, 235 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (citing Barnhill v. Fla. Microsoft Anti-Trust Litig., 905 So. 2d 195, 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“The standard of review of an order on a motion to intervene is abuse of discretion.”)). Although a hearing was held on Appellant’s motion, there is no transcript of the hearing. Under the circumstances of this case, in the absence of a transcript, we cannot reasonably conclude that the trial court abused its discretion, and therefore, we affirm. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979); Shojaie v. Gables Court Prof’l Ctr., Inc., 974 So. 2d 1140, 1141-42 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Outar Inv. Co., LLC v. Interamerican Med. Ctr. Grp., LLC, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
-
IMC Grp., LLC v. Outar Inv. Co., LLC, 336 So. 3d 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
-
Larrain Troncoso v. Ossandon Larrain, 273 So. 3d 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Shohrie Shojaie v. Gables Court Prof'l Ctr., Inc., 974 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Barnhill v. In re Florida Microsoft Antitrust Litigation, 905 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Abujasen v. Lowry Dreke, 118 So. 3d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)