PEDRO D. BARREDO, APPELLANT,
v.
SKYFREIGHT, INC., TROPIC INTERNATIONAL, INC., ECUATORIANA SERVICE COMPANY, INC., AIRCRAFT LOADERS, INC., AEMBREE, INC., AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS, INC., EUGENE HARRIS, GEORGE LANDA, GERRARD BURT, MORTON SILVER AND JERIY DOBBY, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a lower court decision that taxed receiver's expenses against the plaintiff in a receivership case. The court held that where a defendant's reprehensible conduct necessitated appointment of a receiver, the defendant—not the plaintiff—must bear those costs, and the court erred in conditioning the plaintiff's ability to maintain the action on payment of receiver's fees.
The lower court abused its discretion by taxing receiver's expenses against the plaintiff when the defendant's reprehensible conduct created the necessity for the receivership. Additionally, it was error to condition the maintenance of the action on payment of receiver's fees by the plaintiff, as receivership fees constitute costs that follow the result of the suit.
[1] Courts possess broad discretion in allocating the costs and expenses of receiverships.
[2] A court abuses its discretion by taxing receiver's expenses against a plaintiff when the defendant's reprehensible conduct necessitated the receivership.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“where the court had previously determined that defendant's reprehensible conduct created the necessity for the appointment of receiver, a finding clearly supported by the record, it constituted an abuse of that discretion to tax the receiver's expenses against the plaintiff”
Establishes the core holding that expenses must be borne by the defendant whose conduct necessitated the receivership
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA receiver was appointed in this case, and the lower court determined that the defendant's reprehensible conduct created the necessity for the receive…
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 Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
The courts are generally vested with considerable discretion in determining who shall pay the cost and expenses of receiverships. Deauville Corporation v. Blount, 160 Fla. 286, 34 So. 2d 537 (1948). But, where the court had previously determined that defendant’s reprehensible conduct created the necessity for the appointment of receiver, a finding clearly supported by the record, it constituted an abuse of that discretion to tax the receiver’s expenses against the plaintiff. Jackson v. H.M. Wade Mfg. Co., 105 Fla. 560, 142 So. 228 (1932) (expenses and allowance to receiver as fees constitute part of “costs” to be paid by losing party); Neider v. Dardi, 152 Cal.App.2d 156, 313 P. 2d 72 (1957) (where, in accounting action, court was justified in finding defendant guilty of reprehensible conduct, assessment against defendant of all costs of receivership was proper); Archer v. Ross, 262 S.W. 2d 213 (Tex.Civ.App.— Fort Worth 1953) (defendant required to pay all receivership costs where his conduct necessitated receivership).
Further, it was error to condition the maintenance of the action on payment of the receiver’s fees by the plaintiff. Receivership fees, being a part of costs, follow the result of the suit, Jackson v. H.M. Wade Mfg. Co., and where the fees are disputed, and there are no assets in the receivership from-which to make payments, such costs, if recoverable at all, must be recovered in a separate action for that purpose. Walton v. Williams, 5 Okl. 642, 49 P. 1022 (1897). See also attorney’s fees cases, e.g., Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik v. Baucom, 428 So. 2d 1383 (Fla.1983) and cases cited therein.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. JKM Servs., 256 So. 3d 961 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…uit, the "courts are generally vested with considerable discretion in determining who shall pay the cost and expenses of receiverships," though "[r]eceivership fees, being a part of costs, follow the result of the suit." Barredo v. Skyfreight, Inc., 430 So. 2d 513, 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Where there are no remaining assets in a receivership from which to make payments, "such costs, if recoverable at all, must be recovered in a separate action for that purpose." Id. Under either of these scenarios and source…
-
Potter Palmer IV v. Mallory H. Horton Ad Litem of Gordon Palmer O'Neil and Sandra Potter O'Neil, 469 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…hich results in some benefit to the trust, but is replaced by a guardian ad litem who continues the action to an unsuccessful conclusion, it is an abuse of discretion to assess fees and costs against the next friend. See Barredo v. Skyfreight, Inc., 430 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (an abuse of discretion to tax receiver’s expenses against unsuccessful plaintiff where trial court found that the defendant’s reprehensible conduct necessitated appointment of a receiver); Johnson v. Taylor, 116 So. 2d 480 (Fla.…
-
Ready State Bank v. Meiselman, 741 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…e number 99-164 that the expenses of the receivership imposed on the leasehold should have been taxed as cost against the bank. We find no error in this ruling. D.S. Ware Co. v. Green, 696 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Barredo v. Skyfreight, Inc., 430 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Affirmed. . The provision in question stated: Lender (or it its designee, as the case may be), shall cure any default in the payment of any rentals, amounts or fees owing under the Lease within the cure period herein-above…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sinclair v. Baucom, 428 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1983)
- Wm. W. Jackson v. H. M. Wade Mfg. Co., Inc., 105 Fla. 560 (Fla. 1932)
- Deauville Corp. v. IVY T. Blount, 160 Fla. 286 (Fla. 1948)