RESCOM INVESTMENTS, INC., BEE BEE MEDICAL CENTER, INC., AND ALAN FELDMAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
STRATEGIC CONSULTING AND MANAGING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
Mortgagors appealed a trial court's order appointing a receiver for their mortgaged property and setting the receiver's bond at $10,000. The Second District affirmed the appointment of the receiver but reversed the bond amount as inadequate, remanding for a hearing to set a reasonable bond based on the property's actual value of $2-2.5 million.
The trial court properly appointed a receiver based on substantial evidence of default, but the $10,000 bond was inadequate and clearly insufficient given the property's value of $2-2.5 million. The case was remanded for the trial court to hold a hearing and set a reasonable and adequate bond.
[1] A trial court may appoint a receiver for mortgaged property upon a showing of default, especially when the mortgage agreement provides for such a remedy.
[2] The applicant for the appointment of a receiver must post a bond sufficient to protect the opposing party from losses if the appointment is later found to have been impro…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The applicant for the appointment of a receiver is required to post a bond "sufficient in amount to protect the opposing party from any losses sustained 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."”
Establishes the standard for receiver bonds and the burden on the applicant to post adequate security.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants were mortgagors who defaulted on their mortgage obligations. Appellee held the second mortgage and promissory note on the property and soug…
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 Appointment Of Receiver cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, who are the mortgagors in this cause, challenge the non-final order of the trial court appointing a receiver for the subject real property and setting the appellee’s bond for receivership at $10,000. Appellee is the holder of the second mortgage and promissory note on the property. The right of the appellee to the appointment of a receiver in the event of a default was provided for in the mortgage. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(D).
We affirm with regard to the trial court’s appointment of a receiver, concluding that there was substantial evidence in the record to indicate that appellants defaulted on their mortgage obligations. We conclude, however, that the trial court erred when it set appellee’s bond for the receivership at $10,-000.
The applicant for the appointment of a receiver is required to post a bond “sufficient in amount to protect the opposing party from any losses sustained 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 DCA 1989) (trial court erred in setting receivership bond at $1,000 where property was valued at $1,400,000).
We, therefore, reverse that portion of the order which set the appellee’s bond for the receivership at $10,000 and, as in Cohen, we “remand with instructions to the trial court to hold a hearing, guided by the principles of Parker Tampa Two, Inc. v. Somerset Development Corp., 544 So. 2d 1018 (Fla.1989), to set a reasonable and adequate bond.” 554 So. 2d at 6.
We find no merit to the other points raised by appellants in this appeal.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Parker Tampa TWO, Inc. v. Somerset Dev. Corp., 544 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1989)
- Comprop Inv. Props., Ltd. v. First Tex. Sav. Ass'n, 534 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Thomas v. State, 554 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Concepcion v. State, 554 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)