ALVIN S. SHERMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
ERNEST HERMAN, TRUSTEE, AND DOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND CITY OF NORTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 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.
Sherman sought to intervene in a lawsuit after a final judgment had already been entered, but the trial court denied his motion to intervene. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding that Sherman's allegations were insufficient under the applicable standard for intervention.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sherman's motion to intervene. Sherman's allegations were insufficient to meet the requirements for intervention under the applicable standard, and therefore his motion was properly denied.
[1] A trial court may not take judicial notice of records from a separate, unrelated proceeding.
[2] A motion to strike portions of a record and brief is granted when those portions allude to pleadings not before the trial judge in the cause below.
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“We have consolidated those matters and have determined to treat this as an interlocutory appeal from an order entered in a civil action after final judgment.”
Establishes the procedural posture and how the court is treating Sherman's appeal and petition.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final judgment was signed on February 20, 1970, and filed on February 23, 1970, in a suit to which Sherman was not a party. On February 24, 1970, Sh…
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
A final judgment was signed by the trial judge on February 20, 1970, in a suit in which Alvin S. Sherman was not a party. The final judgment was filed on February 23, 1970, and recorded on February 24, 1970.
On February 24, 1970, Sherman filed a “motion for leave to intervene” as a party defendant in the suit. The motion was denied by the trial judge and he has filed an interlocutory appeal and a petition for writ of certiorari to the order of denial.
We have consolidated those matters and have determined to treat this as an interlocutory appeal from an order entered in a civil action after final judgment. Rule 4.2(a), F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., and Fort v. Fort, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 69.
Appellees have filed, in this interlocutory appeal, a motion to strike portions of the record and brief filed herein by Sherman. They assert that those portions of the record and brief allude to certain pleadings and a writ involved in a separate cer-tiorari proceeding filed by Sherman in another division of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida and those pleadings were not a part of the evidence or records before the trial judge in this cause. A certificate of the Clerk of the Circuit Court is attached which certifies that those pleadings were not a part of the record in this action. A trial judge may not take judicial notice of such records. Kostecos v. Johnson, Fla.1956, 85 So.2d 594; and Novack v. Novack, Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 499. The motion to strike is granted. See Kelley v. Kelley, Fla.1954, 75 So.2d 191; and Sheldon v. Tiernan, Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d 593.
Sherman says his motion to intervene should have been allowed under Wags Transportation System Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 751. Appellee says it was properly denied under the authority of Dickinson v. Segal, Fla.1969, 219 So.2d 435.
A review of the record and the motion for leave to intervene reveals insufficient allegations to bring this motion under the authority of Wags, supra. It is, therefore, controlled by Dickinson, supra, and we hold that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion for leave to intervene. See Wogisch v. Tiger, Fla.App. 1966, 193 So.2d 187.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Truxell v. Truxell, 259 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)…n the party’s brief and rasied for the first time on appeal5 are considered waived. The judgment appealed is affirmed. S'PE'CTOR, C. J., and JOHNSON, J., concur. . Turk v. Turk (Fla.App.1960), 118 So. 2d 67. . Sherman, v. Herman (Fla.App.1970), 233 So. 2d 138; In re Estate of Simpkins (Fla.App.1967), 195 So. 2d 590. . Williams v. Williams (Fla.App.1965), 172 So. 2d 488; Fisher v. Maas Bros., Inc. (Fla.App.1963), 149 So. 2d 910; Vaughn v. Smith (Fla.1957), 96 So. 2d 143. . Anderson v. Smith (Fla.App.196…
Authorities 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)
- Kostecos v. Johnson, 85 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1956)
- Fort v. Anne Burton Fort, 104 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Novack v. Novack, 196 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Wogisch v. Tiger, 193 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Thames v. Euna Creech Thames, 75 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1954)
- Nida Ellen Kelley v. Kelley, 75 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1954)
- Everett A. Collins ad litem of the Estate of Elonzo P. Dann, Jr. v. Farley, 147 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Sheldon v. Tiernan (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)