DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

NEON INVESTMENTS, LLC,

Petitioner,

v.

AFINA PALLADA, INC., ILYA TORCHINSKY, and

KSENIA KONDRATYUK,

Respondents.

No. 4D20-281

[July 1, 2020]

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Carol-Lisa Phillips, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

CACE19006129 (25).

Joseph J. Huss, Cary A. Lubetsky and Benny A. Ortiz of Krinzman Huss 

Lubetsky Feldman & Hotte, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

Aresh Alex Dehghani of Dehghani Law, P.A., Miami Lakes, for 

respondents.

WARNER, J.

After a final judgment of foreclosure was entered against Afina Pallada,

Inc., the trial court granted a motion to intervene on behalf of the 

corporation’s president. The judgment creditor petitions for writ of 

certiorari. We grant the petition and conclude that the court departed 

from the essential requirements of law in allowing post-judgment 

intervention.

Petitioner, Neon Investments Inc., filed a complaint to foreclose a 

mortgage on property owned by Afina, together with a notice of lis pendens 

on the property. The complaint also named Ilya Torchinsky, the vice 

president of Afina. It alleged a default under a promissory note and 

mortgage, signed by Torchinsky as vice president. The complaint was 

served on Afina’s registered agent. Afina defaulted, and a final default 

judgment of foreclosure was entered. After final judgment, Afina and 

Torchinsky moved to set aside the default on the ground that Torchinsky 
2

was not properly served. The motion did not claim improper service on 

Afina. The trial court denied the motion.

The property was sold at a judicial sale. Later, respondent Ksenia

Kondratyuk filed a motion to intervene and vacate the final judgment,

alleging that she was the president of Afina. Under the bylaws of the 

corporation she had the general power of management of the corporation, 

and the vice president Torchinsky did not. Kondratyuk also alleged that 

she was the president, chairman of the board of directors, and managing 

member of Vladsale LLC, an entity which owns all controlling shares of 

Afina. She sought intervention pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 

1.230, which provides:

Anyone claiming an interest in pending litigation may at any

time be permitted to assert a right by intervention, but 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.

She claimed that she was an “indispensable party with an interest in the 

above styled action.” The trial court granted the motion, although it did 

not rule on that portion of the motion which sought to vacate the final 

judgment.1

Neon filed its petition for writ of certiorari, contending that this postjudgment intervention was a departure from the essential requirements of 

law. This order is subject to certiorari review. See Fed. Nat’l Mortgage 

Ass’n v. Gallant, 211 So. 3d 1055, 1057-58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). In 

Gallant, we also held that a post-judgment intervention in a foreclosure 

proceeding, which stayed the sale of the property pending the outcome of 

another lawsuit between the parties, was sufficient to show material harm 

not remediable on appeal. Similarly, we conclude that Neon suffers from 

irreparable harm, because the intervention seeks to vacate the final 

judgment and prevent any sale of the property while addressing other 

claims between the parties.

The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by 

allowing this post-judgment intervention, where the purpose of the 

intervention was to attack the final judgment. Post-judgment intervention 

1 After this petition was filed, the trial court entered an order of clarification that 

its order of intervention did not vacate the final judgment. It did allow the filing 

of a counterclaim by Kondratyuk in which she sought invalidation of the 

mortgage as well as damages based upon various theories of recovery.
3

generally is not allowed, see Dickinson v. Segal, 219 So. 2d 435, 436 (Fla. 

1969), and “this Court has strictly adhered to the general rule against 

intervention after final judgment.” See Regency Highland Assocs. v. 

Regency Highland Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 405 So. 2d 788, 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 

1981) (citation omitted). Indeed, rule 1.230 allows intervention in pending 

litigation, not litigation which has already been concluded by final 

judgment. The cases which have allowed post-judgment intervention are 

those in which the merits of the underlying judgment are not being 

challenged. See e.g., Lefkowitz v. Quality Labor Mgmt., LLC, 159 So. 3d 

147 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014); Tech. Chem. & Prods., Inc. v. Porchester Holdings, 

Inc., 748 So. 2d 1090, 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

Kondratyuk claims that she should be allowed to intervene as an 

interested party, being the president, chairman of the board and

controlling shareholder of Afina. She alleges that Torchinsky, as vice 

president and as general counsel executed the note and mortgage, even 

though Torchinsky had no authority to do so on behalf of Afina. In 

Kondratyuk’s pleadings, she claims that Neon engaged in fraud with 

Torchinsky in the execution of the note and mortgage. Kondratyuk also 

mentions that she did not learn of the foreclosure until after the final 

judgment was entered. These facts, she claims, should allow her to 

intervene. If, however, Neon has committed fraud, or if there was “mistake, 

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” in the entry of a default 

against Afina, then Afina can seek relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil 

Procedure 1.540(b). Therefore, the corporation is not without a remedy.

For these reasons, we grant the petition and quash the order of 

intervention in these proceedings. Our ruling is without prejudice to the 

corporate defendant to seek any authorized post-judgment relief pursuant 

to rule 1.540(b).

LEVINE, C.J., and CIKLIN, J., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.