PDX REAL ESTATE, LLC
v.
ROMAZER GROUP, LLC
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.
PDX Real Estate appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to intervene in a case involving Romazer Group. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, holding that post-judgment motions to intervene are rarely granted unless intervention will not injuriously affect the original litigants.
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to intervene, finding no reversible error. Post-judgment motions to intervene are rarely or never granted and only if intervention will not injuriously affect the original litigants.
[1] Post-judgment motions to intervene are rarely granted and only when the proposed intervention will not injuriously affect the rights of the original litigants.
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“A post judgment motion to intervene is rarely, if ever, granted and only if the intervention will not injuriously affect the original litigants.”
Establishes the stringent standard for post-judgment intervention motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePDX Real Estate sought to intervene in an ongoing case involving Romazer Group in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. The trial court denied PDX Real Est…
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 Post-Judgment Intervention cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
discretion. F.Y.E.S. Holdings, Inc. v. House Golden Rule, LLC, 347 So. 3d 66, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). “A post judgment motion to intervene is rarely, if ever, granted and only if the intervention will not injuriously affect the original litigants.” U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Taylor, 30 So. 3d 530, 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); see also Dickinson v. Segal, 219 So. 2d 435, 436 (Fla. 1969) (“[T]he general rule-universally-is that intervention may not be allowed after final judgment.”); Svadbik v. Svadbik, 776 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (affirming denial of post-judgment motion to intervene); Idacon, Inc. v. Hawes, 432 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (reversing order granting motion to intervene after final judgment of foreclosure had been entered and after judicial sale); Lewis v. Turlington, 499 So. 2d 905, 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing third parties to intervene after entry of final order).
Based on the record before us, we cannot find reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
PDX Real Est., LLC v. Romazer Grp., LLC, 347 So. 3d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…and Paul A. Humbert, for appellee Romazer Group, LLC. Before EMAS, LINDSEY, and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM. 2 An order denying a motion to intervene is reviewed for abuse of discretion. F.Y.E.S. Holdings, Inc. v. House Golden Rule, LLC, 347 So. 3d 66, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). “A post judgment motion to intervene is rarely, if ever, granted and only if the intervention will not injuriously affect the original litigants.” U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Taylor, 30 So. 3d 530, 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); s…
Authorities Cited
- Dickinson v. Segal, 219 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1969)
- Idacon, Inc. v. Hawes, 432 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Lewis v. Turlington, 499 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Anton Svadbik and John S. Svadbik v. Svadbik, 776 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Taylor, 30 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- PDX Real Est., LLC v. Romazer Grp., LLC, 347 So. 3d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)