C&J GLOBAL INVESTMENTS, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellant,
JVS CONTRACTING, INC., a Florida Corporation; CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Nebraska Corporation; CAPGAIN PROPERTIES, INC., formerly known as Big Mojo Capital, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the Province of Alberta, Canada; CAPGAIN HOLDINGS, INC., formerly known as Capgain Properties, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the Province of Alberta, Canada; MICHAEL LOPRIENO and BRIAN KNIGHT, Appellees.
FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF
from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Mark F. Carpanini,
J. Schutz, St. Petersburg, for Appellant.
Michael R. D'Onofrio of The D'Onofrio Law Firm, P.A.,
Naples; and Jonathan B. Sbar of Rocke, McLean & Sbar,
P.A., Tampa, for Appellee JVS Contracting, Inc.
S. O'Quinn of Fidelity National Law Group, Fort
Lauderdale, for Appellee Chicago Title Insurance Company.
appearance for remaining appellees.
underlying action, C&J Global Investments, Inc., sued
multiple defendants seeking, among other relief, a
declaration that a warranty deed ("the first deed")
it executed naming Capgain Properties, Inc., as grantee, is
void; rescission of the first deed; and to quiet title to the
property. C&J Global also seeks a declaration that a
warranty deed (the "second deed") executed in the
name of Capgain Properties, Inc., as grantor, in favor of JVS
Contracting, Inc., as grantee, is void as a wild deed and
seeks damages from JVS based on its intentional unauthorized
entry onto the property.
filed a cross-claim against codefendants Capgain Holdings,
Inc., and Capgain Properties, Inc., seeking reformation of
the second deed and a related contract based on an alleged
error as to the named grantor. In this appeal, C&J Global
seeks review of an order denying its motion to intervene in
that cross-claim. We conclude that C&J Global does not
have a direct and immediate interest in the reformation
cross-claim at this time and affirm.
Rule of Civil Procedure 1.230 provides for intervention by
"[a]nyone claiming an interest in pending
[T]he interest which will entitle a person to intervene . . .
must be in the matter in litigation, and of such a direct and
immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or
lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the
judgment. In other words, the interest must be that created
by a claim to the demand in suit or some part thereof, or a
claim to, or lien upon, the property or some part thereof,
which is the subject of litigation.
Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Carlisle, 593 So.2d
505, 507 (Fla. 1992) (alteration in original) (omission in
original) (quoting Morgareidge v. Howey, 78 So. 14,
15 (Fla. 1918)). A person should be joined in an action to
reform a deed if a ruling could divest that person of
whatever interest he or she might have in the property.
Palm v. Taylor, 929 So.2d 566, 568 (Fla. 2d DCA
2006). Absent an abuse of discretion, a trial court's
decision to grant or deny a motion to intervene will be
upheld. Bonafide Props. v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., 198 So.3d 694, 695 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).
Global is not a party to the second deed but argues that it
has an ownership interest that could be divested if JVS
prevails in the reformation cross-claim. C&J Global
asserts that if the second deed is reformed, JVS may be able
to successfully maintain that it is a bona fide purchaser of
the property without notice. And then JVS would not be
subject to C&J Global's claims seeking to establish
its interest in the real property at issue in the underlying
action. See Restatement (Third) of Restitution and
Unjust Enrichment § 66 cmt. a (Am. Law Inst. 2011).
difficulty with C&J Global's argument is that the
property interest it seeks to protect by intervention is the
interest that it transferred through the first deed. Although
C&J Global contends that the transaction reflected by the
first deed is invalid and should be undone, a judgment
reforming the second deed will not itself cause C&J
Global to directly and immediately gain or lose an interest
it might have in the property. Indeed, before the reformation
action could result in any impact on the interest C&J
Global claims it should have in the property, C&J Global
must first prevail in its action to void or rescind the first
deed. Because that has not yet occurred and because C&J
Global is not a party to the second deed, it cannot establish
that it has an interest that would be directly and
immediately affected by reformation of the second deed.
See Stefanos v. Rivera-Berrios, 673 So.2d 12, 13
(Fla. 1996) (holding that an "indirect, inconsequential
or contingent interest is wholly inadequate" to entitle
a party to intervene in the matter being litigated);
Kissoon v. ...