ELECTRO MECHANICAL PRODUCTS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES S. BORONA, 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 the appointment of a receiver because the trial court failed to demonstrate necessity for the drastic remedy when other protective measures were available.
A receiver should not be appointed absent a showing of necessity, as the appointment constitutes a taking of property and alternative protective measures were available.
[1] Appointment of a receiver is a drastic remedy constituting a taking of property and should not be granted except upon a showing of necessity when alternative protective m…
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 intelligence“The appointment of a receiver is a drastic matter in that it constitutes a taking of property and, therefore, should not be used by the courts except in cases of necessity.”
Court explaining the legal standard for appointing receivers and why the trial court erred in this case.
A corporation stockholder sought appointment of a receiver over corporate property he claimed needed protection pending litigation, and the trial cour…
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 Shareholder Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We are presented with an appeal from an order appointing a receiver. It appears from the pleadings that certain property of a corporation was appropriated by the plaintiff upon the theory that possession of the property was necessary to protect his rights as a corporation stockholder. The trial court apparently felt that there was some danger in allowing the corporation to hold the property without restriction pending the litigation; therefore, upon the motion of the plaintiff, he appointed a receiver to hold the property. There is no showing in the record that the property is susceptible to deterioration; nor does it appear that a receiver is necessary for the preservation of the property. Under these circumstances, the trial court should not have appointed a receiver because the purposes sought to be accomplished could have been achieved in other ways. The appointment of a receiver is a drastic matter in that it constitutes a taking of property and, therefore, should not be used by the courts except in cases of necessity. See Recarey v. Rader, Fla.App.1975, 320 So. 2d 28.
We think that it is important to point out that the Recarey v. Rader case had not yet been released and was, therefore, unavailable at the time the trial court made its decision in this case. Accordingly, the order appointing a receiver is reversed.
Reversed.