FIRST WISCONSIN NATIONAL BANK OF MILWAUKEE, APPELLANT,
v.
FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK (A/K/A CITIBANK, N. A.), PALMER FIRST NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF SARASOTA, AND FLORASOTA DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., ET AL., 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.
First Wisconsin National Bank appeals a receiver's order discharging without considering the bank's claim against a condominium for unpaid sewage services. The court reverses, holding that equitable principles require consideration of the bank's timely claim even though it was not a formal party to the receivership proceedings.
The court reversed the trial court's order refusing to allow the bank's claim, holding that equitable principles require consideration of the bank's claim despite the bank not being a formal party to the proceedings. The bank acted timely and in good faith, distribution had not yet occurred when the claim was filed, and no time limit for filing claims had been established.
[1] Equitable principles may necessitate consideration of a claim against a condominium, even if the claimant was not initially made a party to foreclosure proceedings, when…
[2] A claimant's good faith attempt to file a claim with a receiver, even without formal notification of proceedings, should not be rejected solely due to a desire to expedit…
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“under these circumstances equitable principles necessitate consideration of appellant's claim”
Establishes the court's foundational reasoning that equity requires the receiver to consider the bank's claim despite procedural limitations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePoint Development Corporation owned a sewage treatment plant adjacent to Seascape Condominium and allowed it to use the facilities for a fee that was …
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
BOARDMAN, Chief Judge.
Appellate Case No. 77-889 and Case No. 77-890 were consolidated for the purpose of this appeal. Both were mortgage foreclosure actions filed separately by two mortgagees against Seascape Condominium located in Bonita Beach, Florida. Each case was vigorously contested by the parties. Appellant, First Wisconsin National Bank of Milwaukee, was not made a party to either of these proceedings. On June 3, 1975 a receiver was appointed by the trial court to operate and maintain the condominium.
Point Development Corporation of Naples owned a sewage treatment plant located on the premises of Bonita Beach Club which was adjacent to Seascape Condominium. Seascape Condominium was permitted to tap into and use the sewage facilities for a fee which was never paid. On February 24, 1977 Point Development Corporation assigned to appellant its rights and interests in any claim it had against Seascape Condominium for the sewer services.
On March 22 appellant notified the receiver by letter of its interest in Seascape Condominium requesting him to file a claim for $48,750. No response was received by appellant. On April 7 the receiver filed a petition for disbursement of funds and discharge. Although not formally notified of the proceedings appellant appeared at the hearing on the petition held April 25. The trial court subsequently entered an order approving the receiver’s final accounting, providing for disbursements of certain funds, discharging the receiver, and refusing to allow appellant to present its claim. It is this order which appellant appeals. We reverse.
Attorneys for the respective parties indicated during oral argument before this court that they were unable to find a case in Florida or other jurisdictions precisely on point. We submit that under these circumstances equitable principles necessitate consideration of appellant’s claim. See Am. Jur.2d § 334 (1973). There was no time limit established for filing claims, distribution had not been effected when the claim was filed with the receiver, and appellant timely acted to protect its interest in Seascape Condominium after it arose. Appellant attempted in good faith to file its claim for consideration by the receiver and the court. The door should not have been shut to appellant merely because of impatience or desire to terminate the proceedings. The contention that the period of receivership would be extended by presentation of appellant’s claim is on balance clearly outweighed by principles of fairness and reasonableness.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
HOBSON and OTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Christian Broad. Network, Inc. v. Turner Commc'ns Corp., 368 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…of the stockholders. Schemer v. Adamco, Inc., 81 So. 2d 205 (Fla.1955). In a somewhat similar situation the Second District Court recently commented on this issue in the case of First Wisconsin National Bank of Milwaukee v. First National City Bank, 353 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978): Appellant attempted in good faith to file its claim for consideration by the receiver and the court. The door should not have been shut to appellant merely because of impatience or desire to terminate the proceedings. The conten…