ARTHUR J. CHROMY, APPELLANT,
v.
MIDWEST FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION OF MINNEAPOLIS, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1989-08-01
No. 89-299
Before BASKIN, JORGENSON and COPE, JJ.
546 So. 2d 1172 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1989) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.


Holding

The court held that a receiver cannot be appointed in a mortgage foreclosure action without sworn pleadings, testimony, or an affidavit demonstrating waste that impairs the equity of the security.


Facts & Procedural History

Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Association moved for the appointment of a receiver after Chromy defaulted on his mortgage. The trial court appointed a…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

[*1173] PER CURIAM.

Arthur Chromy appeals from a nonfinal order appointing a receiver in a mortgage foreclosure action. For the following reasons, we reverse.

Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Association holds a mortgage and security agreement on property purchased by Chromy; Chromy assumed the mortgage. The agreement provides that, if the mortgagor defaults and Midwest sues to enforce the agreement, Midwest is entitled to the appointment of a receiver to take possession of the mortgaged property. Upon Chro-my’s default, Midwest filed an unverified complaint for foreclosure and immediately moved for appointment of a receiver. After a hearing on the motion at which the court received no testimony or affidavit from Midwest, the trial court appointed a receiver. This court expressly disapproved such a result in Boyd v. Banc One Mortgage Corp., 509 So. 2d 966, 967 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987):

The trial court erroneously appointed a receiver without testimony, sworn pleadings or an affidavit demonstrating a show of “waste” which impairs the equity of security. Error was committed notwithstanding the provisions in the mortgage providing for 1) the appointment of a receiver in the event of default in the payment of the note secured thereby or other default in the mortgage, and 2) the assignment of rents from the secured property as additional collateral. (Citations omitted.)

See also M.B.D. Properties, Ltd. v. Shangri-La Resorts II, Inc., 546 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (error to appoint receiver where there was no verified showing that party asking for receiver wall recover in underlying foreclosure action).

On the authority of Boyd, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent -with this decision.

Reversed and remanded.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw