DE OLIVEIRA v. UNITED TENNIS ACADEMY LLC UTA LLC (2019)

Phillipe and Frederique De Oliveira appeal from the trial court's final order denying their motion to intervene in United Tennis Academy, LLC's action to enforce two promissory notes against UTA Holdings, LLC. At the time that United Tennis Academy, LLC (Academy) initiated the enforcement proceeding, the De Oliveiras were minority owners and members of both Academy and UTA Holdings, LLC (UTA). Academy moved for final summary judgment, and UTA did not file a response. The De Oliveiras then moved to intervene in Academy's enforcement action as party defendants on the basis that UTA was not adequately defending the suit. This was based in part on UTA's failure to raise as a defense that a lease between Academy and UTA established that Academy was responsible for the payments on the promissory notes. The trial court denied the De Oliveiras' motion to intervene. The court then entered partial summary judgment and, ultimately, final summary judgment in favor of Academy.

On appeal from the order denying the De Oliveiras' motion to intervene, Academy conceded error. After conducting an independent review, we accept Academy's concession and conclude that the De Oliveiras established that they had a sufficient interest to intervene in the enforcement proceeding based on their showing that UTA was not adequately defending the enforcement action. See Oster v. Cay Const. Co., 204 So. 2d 539, 542 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967) (“The mere fact that [appellants] are stockholders in the plaintiff corporation does not give them sufficient interest to intervene in the absence of a showing that the plaintiff corporation is not adequately conducting the suit.”). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order denying the De Oliveiras' motion to intervene. Because the trial court's orders granting partial and final summary judgment in favor of the De Oliveiras were rendered after it denied the De Oliveiras' motion to intervene, we also reverse the orders granting partial and final summary judgment in favor of Academy. See Omni Nat'l Bank v. Ga. Banking Co., 951 So. 2d 1006, 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“We also reverse the default judgment entered by the trial court. The default judgment was entered subsequent to the trial court's denial of Omni's rightful motion to intervene and to participate in the litigation.”).

Reversed and remanded.

BADALAMENTI, Judge.

KELLY and SMITH, JJ., Concur.