Case Name: STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT of LEGAL AFFAIRS, Appellant, v. Billie Jean RAINS; Sheila Miller, as personal representative of the Estate of William Rains, a/k/a Bill Rains, a/k/a William John Rains, deceased; John Rains, a/k/a John Mitchell Rains; Rebecca Hamilton; Lenny's Bar; Florida Vending Company; Royal Vending Inc., d/b/a Royal Vending Company, and others known and unknown, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1995-05-12
Citations: 654 So. 2d 1254
Docket Number: No. 94-00772
Parties: STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT of LEGAL AFFAIRS, Appellant, v. Billie Jean RAINS; Sheila Miller, as personal representative of the Estate of William Rains, a/k/a Bill Rains, a/k/a William John Rains, deceased; John Rains, a/k/a John Mitchell Rains; Rebecca Hamilton; Lenny’s Bar; Florida Vending Company; Royal Vending Inc., d/b/a Royal Vending Company, and others known and unknown, Appellees.
Judges: BLUE and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 654
Pages: 1254–1256

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT of LEGAL AFFAIRS, Appellant, v. Billie Jean RAINS; Sheila Miller, as personal representative of the Estate of William Rains, a/k/a Bill Rains, a/k/a William John Rains, deceased; John Rains, a/k/a John Mitchell Rains; Rebecca Hamilton; Lenny’s Bar; Florida Vending Company; Royal Vending Inc., d/b/a Royal Vending Company, and others known and unknown, Appellees.
No. 94-00772.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
May 12, 1995.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Rose Hilbelink, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
William D. Slicker of William D. Slicker, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellee Billie Jean Rains.
No appearance for other appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida appeals the circuit court's order allowing Billie Jean Rains to intervene in a distribution of assets from a civil RICO settlement. Because the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the intervention, we affirm.
The standard of review for an order granting a motion to intervene is abuse of discretion. Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Carlisle, 593 So.2d 505 (Fla.1992). In this case, Rains claimed an interest in property obtained by the state in a civil RICO settlement. She alleged that the state failed to give her the notice at the time the RICO action was initiated. Based on these allegations, the circuit court granted Rains intervenor status so the validity of her claim could be determined. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in this ruling and therefore we affirm.
The dissent concludes that Rains does not have a valid claim to the sale proceeds. However, the validity of the claim is not at issue. The limited question before this court is whether intervention was properly allowed. After Rains is allowed to intervene, the circuit court can rule on the validity of her claim.
Affirmed.
BLUE and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
PARKER, A.C.J., dissents with opinion.
. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, § 895.01-.06, Fla.Stat. (1989).