JOHN G. BOOKOUT, AS RECEIVER FOR MODERN HOME LIFE INSURANCE CO., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
FIRST NATIONAL MORTGAGE AND DISCOUNT COMPANY, INC., AND ATLAS FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
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 court held that the appointment of a receiver pendente lite was not an abuse of discretion and affirmed the lower court's order.
The district court appointed a receiver pendente lite for corporate defendants due to suspicion of fraudulent conveyance of collateral, potentially ha…
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 Receiver Pendente Lite cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Following discovery and a conference with the parties, the district court found ' substantial reason to suspect that the Atlas defendants had caused certain collateral to be fraudulently conveyed by, through, and to affiliated corporate defendants, to the probable detriment of a secured party which is the plaintiff in Modern Home Life Ins. Co. v. Atlas Financial Corp., et al., Civ. No. C74 — 302A, now pending before the district court. The court thereupon appointed a receiver pendente lite for the purposes of managing the defendants and marshaling the collateral together with its proceeds.
We have carefully examined the defendants’-appellants’ objections to the receivership and find them to be without merit. The appointment of a receiver, otherwise proper, is not to be defeated for lack of sworn pleading or the absence of a full evidentiary hearing. See Haase v. Chapman, W.D.Mo.1969, 308 F.Supp. 399. Considering the probability of success on the merits, the appearance of fraudulent conduct, the imminent danger of further injury to the collateral, and the balance of the equities,1 we are of the opinion that no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated.
Finding no error, the order appointing the receiver pendente lite is affirmed on the basis of District Judge Freeman’s well-reasoned opinion, 395 F.Supp. 1338 (1974).
. See 12 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2983, at 22-24.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Spence & Green Chem. Co. & Andrew Spence, Sr., 612 F.2d 896 (5th Cir. 1980)
-
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. First Fin. Grp. OF Tex., 645 F.2d 429 (5th Cir. 1981)
-
Marshall v. Snyder, 572 F.2d 894 (2d Cir. 1978)
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)