IN RE THE RECEIVERSHIP OF SYNDICATE TWO, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION
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.
A law firm appeals an order requiring it to deliver client documents of an insured in receivership to the Department of Insurance receiver, despite the firm's assertion of an attorney's retaining lien. The court affirms, holding that Florida's receivership statute requires full cooperation and document delivery regardless of pending lien claims.
The law firm must deliver the documents to the receiver because Chapter 631 vests title to all property, books, and records of the insurer in the receiver and requires agents to promptly make available and deliver all documents and records. An order directing transfer of documents does not adjudicate or extinguish the lien; the firm may pursue its lien claim through the delinquency proceedings.
[1] A receiver appointed pursuant to Chapter 631, Florida Statutes, is vested by operation of law with title to all property, contracts, rights of action, and books and recor…
[2] A law firm in possession of an insurer's documents must deliver them to a receiver appointed under Chapter 631, Florida Statutes.
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“chapter 631 requires the law firm to release the documents to the receiver. This is so, because, after the Department is appointed receiver, it 'is vested by operation of law with the title to all of the property, contracts, and rights of action, and all of the books and records, of the insurer, wherever located ... and it shall have the right to recover the same and reduce the same to possession'”
Establishes the statutory basis for the receiver's authority to obtain all insurer documents.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAkerman, Senterfitt and Eidson law firm possessed documents and files of its former clients, an insured in receivership. The firm asserted an attorney…
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'S Powers cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Akerman, Senterfitt and Eidson (law firm) appeals the entry of an order directing it to deliver to the Department of Insurance (Department), the receiver appointed pursuant to Chapter 631, Florida Statutes (1987), certain documents and files belonging to its former clients over which it has asserted an attorney’s retaining lien. We affirm.
In our judgment, chapter 631 requires the law firm to release the documents to the receiver. This is so, because, after the Department is appointed receiver, it “is vested by operation of law with the title to all of the property, contracts, and rights of action, and all of the books and records, of the insurer, wherever located ... and it shall have the right to recover the same and reduce the same to possession_” § 631.141(2), Fla.Stat. (1987) (emphasis added).
The law firm, acting as agent for the insurers, is required to cooperate fully with the receiver, including “[pjromptly to make available and deliver to the department any books, accounts, documents, or other records, information, data processing software, or property of or pertaining to the insurer and in ... [its] possession, custody, or control....” § 631.391(1)(b), Fla.Stat. (1987) (emphasis added).
Therefore, the provisions of chapter 631 obviously direct a law firm, having possession of the documents of an insurer that has been placed in receivership, to transfer the same to the receiver. The law firm contends, however, that the trial court erred in ordering it to make such transfer, in contravention of its asserted retaining lien, without providing for payment of the lien. This argument overlooks the fact that the only appealable ruling contained in the order is the simple direction to the firm to effect the conveyance. The order neither adjudicates the validity of the claim, nor does it extinguish the lien, because an order directing the transfer of such documents has no effect on the lien, if otherwise determined valid. See Kaplan v. Reuss, 113 A.D.2d 184, 185, 495 N.Y.S.2d 404, 406 (App.Div.1985), aff'd, 68 N.Y.2d 693, 497 N.E. 2d 671, 506 N.Y.S.2d 304 (1986) (cited in Litman v. Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash, Block & England, P.A., 517 So. 2d 88, 90 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 525 So. 2d 879 (1988)).
Thus, any determination regarding the validity or payment of the retaining lien would be premature at this point. Rather, the law firm should abide by the provisions of section 631.181, requiring it to file a proof of claim in the delinquency proceedings, and authorizing the circuit court, which has exclusive original jurisdiction over such matters, to adjudicate the validity of the claim and its priority under section 631.271.
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, C.J., and NIMMONS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nova Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Fla. Dep't OF Ins., 606 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…Our attention is directed to several cases reflecting the broad variety of claims which must be brought in the court administering the receivership, see e.g., Sunset Commercial Bank, 509 So. 2d at 367; and In Re Receivership of Syndicate Two, Inc., 538 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), but we are unaware of a case in which a litigant was required to pursue a claim to property not belonging to the insurer, and thus not in the receivership estate, in the court administering the receivership. But cf., Mall Bank v…
Authorities Cited
- Elliot v. State, 517 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Litman v. Fine, 517 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)