Intervention Standard for Intervening into Lawsuit

If you’ve ever considered intervening into a lawsuit, Mendoza v. Kendall Park Plaza, Ltd., 51 Fla.L.Weekly D309a (Fla. 3d DCA 2026), does a good job explaining the standard ad the process.

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.230 governs intervention. It provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]nyone claiming an interest in pending litigation may at any time be permitted to assert a right by intervention . . . .” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.230. But the rule comes with the caveat that “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.” Id.

In conformity with the rule, assessing whether a motion to intervene should be granted involves a two-step process:

First, the trial court must determine that the interest asserted is appropriate to support intervention. See Morgareidge [v. Howey, 78 So. 14, 15 (Fla. 1918)]. Once the trial court determines that the requisite interest exists, it must exercise its sound discretion to determine whether to permit intervention. In deciding this question[,] the court should consider a number of factors, including the derivation of the interest, any pertinent contractual language, the size of the interest, the potential for conflicts or new issues, and any other relevant circumstance.

Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Carlisle, 593 So. 2d 505, 507-08 (Fla. 1992). “Second, the court must determine the parameters of the intervention[,]” and “intervention should be limited to the extent necessary to protect the interests of all parties.” Id. at 508.

Mendoza, supra.

In Mendoza, the trial court denied a motion to intervene. On appeal, the standard of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the intervention. The appellate court found the trial court did abuse its discretion and should have granted the intervention because the intervening party had a legitimate interest in the matter at-issue.