KEY CAISEE CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
SEASHORE SHELL COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND EBEKA CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Resident Agent cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial court found that service upon an employee of an attorney was valid service on the appellant corporation. The attorney was the designated resident agent of the appellant corporation and his office had been designated as the corporate office. The employee was served at the attorney’s office between the hours of 10 A.M. to 12 noon on a normal working day.1
The trial court also appointed a receiver to facilitate the accomplishment of the purposes of a partnership. Among oth er things, it empowered the receiver to arrange financing in order to continue the operation of the partnership and preserve its principal asset in order to accomplish an orderly winding up of the partnership affairs. We find no error in either ruling and affirm. Karafilakis v. Stavroulakis, 112 Fla. 303, 150 So. 277 (1933); Allen v. Hawley, 6 Fla. 142 (1855); Arison Shipping Company v. Klosters Rederi A/S, 259 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Sec. §§ 48.081(3), 48.091, Fla.Stat. (1983). Compare State v. Tedder, 103 Fla. 1083, 138 So. 643 (1932).
Affirmed.
. The attorney was absent from the office at the time of service.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Puma Enters. Corp. v. Vitale, 566 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…a receiver without notice to pre [*1345] serve Breakwater’s sole asset. See Kosow v. Kovens, 473 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (trial court properly appointed receiver to preserve single asset of partnership); Key Caisee Corp. v. Seashore Shell Co., 470 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (trial court properly appointed receiver to facilitate accomplishment of purposes of partnership); Insurance Management, Inc. v. McLeod, 194 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966) (temporary receiver appointed only to preserve property and…
-
Kosow v. Cal Kovens, 473 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…the single question which is in a posture for review,1 we find no error in the trial court’s appointment of a receiver to preserve the single asset of a partnership pursuant to a winding up of its affairs. See Key Caisee Corp. v. Seashore Shell Co., 470 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Since the trial court did not authorize the receiver to encumber the property with a $31 million mortgage there is no urgency to decide, on the present state of the record, whether development of the land, which is the sole asset…
Authorities Cited
- Allen v. Hawley, 6 Fla. 142 (Fla. 1855)
- State ex rel. Woods-Young Co. v. Geo. W. Tedder, 103 Fla. 1083 (Fla. 1932)
- Arison Shipping Co. v. Klosters Rederi A/S, 259 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Karafilakis v. Aristocratis Stavroulakis, 112 Fla. 303 (Fla. 1933)