Case Name: HAVANATUR, S.A., a Panamanian corporation, Appellant, v. 747 TRAVEL AGENCY, INC., a Florida corporation; Esperanza Valdez and Intercontinental Bank, a national banking association, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-01-29
Citations: 463 So. 2d 404
Docket Number: No. 84-1395
Parties: HAVANATUR, S.A., a Panamanian corporation, Appellant, v. 747 TRAVEL AGENCY, INC., a Florida corporation; Esperanza Valdez and Intercontinental Bank, a national banking association, Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUB-BART and JORGENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 463
Pages: 404–405

Head Matter:
HAVANATUR, S.A., a Panamanian corporation, Appellant, v. 747 TRAVEL AGENCY, INC., a Florida corporation; Esperanza Valdez and Intercontinental Bank, a national banking association, Appellees.
No. 84-1395.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jan. 29, 1985.
Rehearing Denied March 5, 1985.
Cesar R. Camacho, Miami, for appellant.
Rubinstein & Kornik and Jeffrey D. Rubinstein, Miami, for appellees 747 Travel Agency, Inc. and Esperanza Valdez.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUB-BART and JORGENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The final order denying the appellant Havanatur, S.A.'s motion to intervene below is affirmed because no showing has been made that the trial court abused its discretion in rendering this ruling. The motion to intervene was filed during the final stages of the litigation below, just three days prior to the entry of the final judgment, with no explanation given as to the reason for the untoward delay. At that time the appellant had a pending lawsuit against the interested parties herein which adequately protected its rights. Under the circumstances, we cannot fault the trial judge for denying the motion to intervene and requiring the appellant to pursue his remedies elsewhere. Idacon, Inc. v. Hawes, 432 So.2d 759, 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) and cases collected.
Moreover, the motion to intervene was denied after the entry of final judgment; "the general rule — universally—is that intervention may not be allowed after final judgment," save " 'in the interests of justice' ", Dickinéon v. Segal, 219 So.2d. 435, 436-37 (Fla.1969) (emphasis omitted) and cases collected; and there is no showing that the interests of justice required this intervention.
Affirmed.