National Wildlife Federation Inc. v. Glisson
| Decision Date | 15 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1616,87-1616 |
| Citation | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2158,531 So.2d 996 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2158 NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION INC., and Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc., Appellants, v. J.T. GLISSON, Horace R. Drew, Jr., Pete and Terry Cucchiara, Burman and Shirley Dodd, Joseph and Erie Dunn, Carlton Glisson, Frank and Ruby Mlsna, Truman and Vanice Parker, Marjorie Aldora, Dorothy Hamilton, Tommie and Naomi David, John and Lessie Rimes, Ed and Freddie Tanner, J.W. and Loraine Thomas, Francis Sangster and Alachua County, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David J. White, Atlanta, Ga., for appellant National Wildlife federation, inc.
Timothy Keyser, Interlachen, for appellant Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc.
William O. Miller, G. Stephen Parker and Robert B. Baker, Jr., of Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc., Atlanta, Ga., and Bruce Brashear, of Watson, Folds, Steadham, Christman & Brashear, Gainesville, for appellees J.T. Glisson, et al.
Thomas A. Bustin, Co. Atty. and Thomas D. MacNamara, Asst. Co. Atty., Gainesville, for appellee Alachua County.
The National Wildlife Federation, Inc. and the Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. sought to intervene in a suit filed in Alachua County Circuit Court against Alachua County by the individual appellees, but intervention was denied. We agree with appellants that intervention should have been allowed, and reverse the order denying their motion to intervene.
The case arose out of Alachua County's amendment of its land use plan which sets forth development plans and conservation goals applicable to the Cross Creek Village and surrounding area which will have the effect of curtailing all types of development in the area and preserving the natural habitat of the area's wildlife. The individual appellees, the plaintiffs below, filed suit against Alachua County challenging the validity of the amendment. Approximately 23 months later appellants sought to intervene on behalf of defendant Alachua County.
The oft-quoted general rule of intervention appears in Morgareidge v. Howey, 75 Fla. 234, 78 So. 14 (1918):
The interest which will entitle a person to intervene ... 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. In other words, the interest must be that created by a claim to the demand in suit, or some part thereof, or a claim to, or lien upon property or some part thereof, which is the subject of litigation.
Id., 78 So. at 15. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.230 provides:
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.
Intervention should be liberally allowed. Miracle House Corp. v. Haige, 96 So.2d 417 (Fla.1957). An intervenor must accept the record and pleadings as he finds them and cannot raise new issues, although he may argue the issues as they apply to him as a party. Riviera Club v. Belle Mead Development Corp., 141 Fla. 538, 194 So. 783 (Fla.1940); Williams v. Nussbaum, 419 So.2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). When appellants filed their motion to intervene trial was scheduled for approximately 6 months thereafter, and was eventually rescheduled for an even later date. Discovery was still underway and the pleadings had not yet closed. Appellants did not offer any explanation for the timing of the motion, but did assure the court that their desire to intervene would not delay or disrupt the proceedings. The motion to intervene cannot be regarded as untimely. See Bay Park Towers Condominium Association, Inc. v. H.J. Ross & Associates, 503 So.2d 1333 (Fla....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Litvak v. Scylla Properties, LLC
...intervener is bound by the record made at the time he intervenes and must take the suit as he finds it."); Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n Inc. v. Glisson, 531 So.2d 996, 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) ("An intervenor must accept the record and pleadings as he finds them and cannot raise new issues, although......
-
WINGROVE EST. ASS'N v. PAUL CURTIS REALTY
...See e.g., City of St. Petersburg Board of Adjustment v. Marelli, 728 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); National Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. Glisson, 531 So.2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Rinker Materials Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 528 So.2d 904 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Curtis, on the other ha......
-
ENVIRONMENTAL CONFED. OF SOUTHWEST FL., INC. v. IMC Phosphates, Inc.
...is a dependent remedy in the sense that an intervenor may not inject a new issue into the case. See Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n Inc. v. Glisson, 531 So.2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The Confederation and Manasota-88 might be able to make an argument that would persuade the Department to deny the per......
-
Fla. House of Representatives v. Florigrown, LLC
...responsibility of the State implicating specific responsibilities of" either legislative body); see also Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, Inc. v. Glisson , 531 So. 2d 996, 997 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (" ‘Anyone claiming an interest in pending litigation may at any time be permitted to assert his right by ......