FREDERIQUE DE OLIVEIRA, ET AL
v.
UNITED TENNIS ACADEMY, L L C, ET AL
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.
The appellate court reversed a trial court's denial of a motion to intervene, finding that minority owners of related companies had a sufficient interest to join a lawsuit when their company was not adequately defending it. This reversal also led to the vacating of summary judgments entered in favor of the plaintiff.
Yes, the minority owners had a sufficient interest to intervene because they demonstrated that UTA was not adequately defending the enforcement action. Consequently, the trial court's denial of their motion to intervene was erroneous.
[1] A party seeking to intervene in an action must demonstrate a sufficient interest in the litigation and that the existing party is not adequately defending the suit.
[2] A trial court's denial of a motion to intervene is reversible error when the movant establishes a sufficient interest and inadequate representation by an existing party.
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“The De Oliveiras then moved to intervene in Academy's enforcement action as party defendants on the basis that UTA was not adequately defending the suit.”
Describes the basis for the appellants' motion to intervene.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMinority owners of two LLCs, Academy and UTA Holdings, sought to intervene in a lawsuit filed by Academy against UTA to enforce promissory notes. The …
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 Right To Intervene cases and more on FLexlaw
BADALAMENTI, Judge.
- 2 - Phillipe and Frederique De Oliveira appeal from the trial court's final order denying their motion to intervene in United Tennis Academy, LLC's action to enforce two promissory notes against UTA Holdings, LLC. At the time that United Tennis Academy, LLC (Academy) initiated the enforcement proceeding, the De Oliveiras were minority owners and members of both Academy and UTA Holdings, LLC (UTA).
Academy moved for final summary judgment, and UTA did not file a response. The De Oliveiras then moved to intervene in Academy's enforcement action as party defendants on the basis that UTA was not adequately defending the suit. This was based in part on UTA's failure to raise as a defense that a lease between Academy and UTA established that Academy was responsible for the payments on the promissory notes.
The trial court denied the De Oliveiras' motion to intervene. The court then entered partial summary judgment and, ultimately, final summary judgment in favor of Academy.
On appeal from the order denying the De Oliveiras' motion to intervene, Academy conceded error. After conducting an independent review, we accept Academy's concession and conclude that the De Oliveiras established that they had a sufficient interest to intervene in the enforcement proceeding based on their showing that UTA was not adequately defending the enforcement action. See Oster v. Cay Const. Co., 204 So. 2d 539, 542 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967) ("The mere fact that [appellants] are stockholders in the plaintiff corporation does not give them sufficient interest to intervene in the absence of a showing that the plaintiff corporation is not adequately conducting the suit.").
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order denying the De Oliveiras' motion to intervene. Because the trial court's orders granting partial and final summary judgment in favor of the De Oliveiras were rendered after it denied the De
- 3 - Oliveiras' motion to intervene, we also reverse the orders granting partial and final summary judgment in favor of Academy. See Omni Nat'l Bank v. Ga. Banking Co., 951 So. 2d 1006, 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) ("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. KELLY and SMITH, JJ., Concur.