Case ID: so2d_510/html/1076-02.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

Russell M. SETTI, Appellant, v. BROWARD COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and Samuel Lichtenstein, et al., Appellees.
    No. 4-86-1234.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    July 29, 1987.
    Stephen W. Toothaker of Stephen W. Toothaker, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
    Susan F. Delegal, General Counsel, and Noel M. Pfeffer, Deputy General Counsel, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee, Broward County.
    Alan E. Deserio of Brigham, Moore, Gay-lord, Schuster & Sachs, Tallahassee, for appellee Lichtenstein.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.

GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs specially.

GLICKSTEIN, Judge,

concurring specialty-

This is an appeal of a nonfinal order, striking a real estate broker’s answer and affirmative defenses, thus effectively denying the broker leave to intervene in a condemnation action. When this “PCA” was circulated, I felt something should be said, as this court apparently has not spoken on the subject. Such a statement may obviate similar questions or delays in the future.

Section 73.051, Florida Statutes (1985) provides for intervention; but “the interest of the intervenor in the property ... must be of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment of compensation for the specific property named in the petition.” Tampa Suburban Utilities Corp. v. Hills-borough County Aviation Authority, 195 So.2d 568, 569 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert, denied, 201 So.2d 898 (Fla.1967). Appellant here was seeking a commission as a real estate broker; his affirmative defenses did not show appellant had an interest in the property that would support intervention pursuant to the statute.