Affirmed. See Fasig v. Fla. Socy of Pathologists, 769 So. 2d 1151, 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (“The power to grant or deny intervention in a pending litigation rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed without a showing of abuse of discretion.”); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.230 (“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.”); Omni Natl Bank v. Georgia Banking Co., 951 So. 2d 1006, 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“In order for a party to intervene, its interest ‘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.’ ” (quoting Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Carlisle, 593 So. 2d 505, 507 (Fla. 1992))); In re Estate of Arroyo v. Infinity Indem. Ins. Co., 211 So. 3d 240, 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“Importantly, a partys asserted interest must already be at issue in the proceedings when the party seeks to intervene.”); Grimes v. Walton Cnty., 591 So. 2d 1091, 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (reversing order granting motion to intervene where intervenors interest in action was “ ‘indirect [and] contingent’ rather than ‘direct and immediate’ ”).
PER CURIAM.