COMPROP INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, LTD., GULF SOUTH RESOURCES, INC., HARVEY ESTES AND SUSAN ESTES, APPELLANTS,
v.
FIRST TEXAS SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court reversed a receiver appointment order because the foreclosing lender failed to post a receivership bond as required by law absent exceptional circumstances.
A party seeking appointment of a receiver must post a bond sufficient to protect the opposing party from losses if the appointment is later deemed improvident, unless exceptional circumstances preclude the requirement.
[1] A party applying for appointment of a receiver must post a bond to protect the opposing party from losses if the appointment proves improvident, unless exceptional circum…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA lender brought a foreclosure action against property owners regarding a shopping center mortgage in Hillsborough County. The trial judge appointed a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Receivership cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
The appellee brought this action against the appellants to foreclose a mortgage covering a shopping center in Hillsborough County owned by the appellants. After the appellants filed an answer and affirmative defenses, and a counterclaim, the appellee moved for the appointment of a receiver. The trial judge entered an order appointing a receiver without requiring the posting of a receivership bond by the appellee. The appellants seek review of that order, claiming that the trial judge erred in failing to require the appellee to post a receivership bond. We agree and reverse.
Florida courts have held that the applicant for the appointment of a receiver should be required to provide a bond if the receiver is appointed, sufficient in amount to protect the opposing party from any losses sustained should it ultimately be concluded that the appointment of the receiver was improvident, unless exceptional circumstances are shown which preclude the need or ability to furnish such a bond. Belk’s Department Store, Miami, Inc. v. Scherman, 117 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); Turtle Lake Associates, Ltd. v. Third Financial Services, Inc., 518 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The appellee has not alleged exceptional circumstances in this case. Accordingly, we reverse with directions that the appellee be required to post an adequate bond in accordance with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LEHAN and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rescom Invs., Inc. v. Strategic Consulting & Managing, Inc., 635 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…ned should it ultimately be concluded that the appointment of a receiver was improvident, unless exceptional circumstances are shown which preclude the need or ability to furnish such a bond.” Comprop Inv. Properties, Ltd. v. First Texas Sav. Ass’n, 534 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). In this case there were no exceptional circumstances, and uncontested testimony showed the property to be worth two to two and one-half million dollars. Clearly, a $10,000 bond is inadequate. Cohen v. Rubin, 554 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d…
-
Hollywood, LLC v. Sures, 59 So. 3d 1232 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…tained should it ultimately be concluded that the appointment of the receiver was improvident, unless exceptional circumstances are shown which preclude the need or ability to furnish such a bond.” Comprop Inv. Props., Ltd. v. First Tex. Sav. Ass’n, 534 So. 2d 418, 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (emphasis added; citations omitted). Here, the plaintiff did not show exceptional circumstances which preclude the need or ability to furnish such a bond. We do not accept the court’s comments regarding the receiver’s backgr…
Authorities Cited
- Belk's Dep't Store v. Scherman, 117 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Turtle Lake Assocs., Ltd. v. Third Fin. Servs., Inc., 518 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)