Case ID: so2d_548/html/0299-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. GLICKSTEIN, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William FRANGESH and Beverly Frangesh, Appellants, v. Harry SCHWARTZ and Marsha Lynn Schwartz, Appellees.
    No. 89-0292.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Sept. 6, 1989.
    
      Joseph W. Gibson, Jr., and Stanley J. Bartel, P.A., Miami, for appellants.
    Anthony J. Titone of Titone, Roarke & Titone, Lauderhill, for appellee-Harry Schwartz.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellants moved to intervene in appel-lees’ dissolution proceeding to establish a lien against the marital home. Fields v. Fields, 35 So.2d 722 (Fla.1948) and Picchi v. Picchi, 100 So.2d 627 (Fla.1958), cited by appellants, do not support the argument that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied their motion to intervene. In Fields, the wife moved to bring in aft additional party in an effort to clear title to a parcel of marital property. In Picchi, the wife sought to join two corporations she claimed were the husband’s alter-ego. Here, neither party sought joinder of appellants. Based on the record before us, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellants' motion to intervene. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

HERSEY, C.J., and DELL, J., concur.

GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.

GLICKSTEIN, Judge,

concurring specially.

Had I been the trial judge, I might have permitted this intervention in the interest of judicial economy. Nevertheless, I concur in the affirmance.

Grant or denial of intervention is a matter within the discretion of the court, and appellants have not made a convincing showing that this discretion has been abused.

Moreover, appellants have available another avenue; they may pursue their claim by initiating a separate action.