HOLLYWOOD, LLC, FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, 1925 MADISON CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION, AND STEVEN KATES, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT H. SURES, APPELLEE
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.
In this condominium dispute, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's appointment of a receiver to manage roof leak repairs but reversed the court's decision to waive the bond requirement, holding that a receiver applicant must post bond unless exceptional circumstances preclude it.
The court held that the circuit court erred by not requiring a bond without the plaintiff showing exceptional circumstances precluding the need or ability to furnish one. The receiver's qualifications and experience do not constitute such exceptional circumstances. The case was remanded for the court to require a bond unless the plaintiff demonstrates exceptional circumstances.
[1] A court may appoint a receiver without requiring a bond if exceptional circumstances preclude the need or ability to furnish such a bond.
[2] The applicant for the appointment of a receiver should generally be required to provide a bond sufficient to protect the opposing party from losses if the appointment is…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Florida courts have held that the applicant for the appointment of a receiver should be required to provide a bond if the receiver is appointed, sufficient in amount to protect the opposing party from any losses sustained should it ultimately be concluded that the appointment of the receiver was improvident, unless exceptional circumstances are shown which preclude the need or ability to furnish such a bond.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for bond requirements in receiver appointments
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHollywood, LLC and a condominium association sought appointment of a receiver to address ongoing roof leaks damaging the plaintiff's unit and common e…
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 Exceptional Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendants appeal the circuit court’s order granting the plaintiffs motion to appoint a receiver. The defendants raise five arguments. On the first four arguments, we affirm. On the fifth argument — that the court erred by not requiring the plaintiff or the receiver to furnish a bond without the plaintiff having shown exceptional circumstances which preclude *1233the need or ability to furnish such a bond — we reverse.
The plaintiff moved to appoint a receiver to take control of and manage the defendant condominium association. In the motion, the plaintiff alleged that leaks from the condominium building’s roof were damaging the plaintiffs unit and the building’s common elements. The plaintiff further alleged that he made demands upon the association to repair or replace the roof, but it ignored his demands. Therefore, the plaintiff requested the circuit court to appoint a receiver, but “without bond or other security.” The plaintiff did not explain why he requested the court to appoint the receiver “without bond or other security.”
After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the court orally granted the motion and, on its own, named a receiver. In naming the receiver, the court stated that it wanted the receiver to be somebody who “knows what [he is] doing, and [the receiver] has that background and experience ... [H]e is a very well respected lawyer in Fort Lauderdale for many years and he has ... the ability to do it.”
After the court’s oral ruling, the court entered a written order which stated, in pertinent part, “The court appoints [name of receiver] as the receiver, without bond or other security.” The court did not explain why it allowed the receiver to serve “without bond or other security.”
The defendants then filed this appeal. The defendants argue that the court erred by not requiring the plaintiff or the receiver to furnish a bond without the plaintiff having shown exceptional circumstances which preclude the need or ability to furnish such a bond.
We agree. “Florida courts have held that the applicant for the appointment of a receiver should be required to provide a bond if the receiver is appointed, sufficient in amount to protect the opposing party from any losses sustained should it ultimately be concluded that the appointment of the receiver was improvident, unless exceptional circumstances are shown which preclude the need or ability to furnish such a bond.” Comprop Inv. Props., Ltd. v. First Tex. Sav. Ass’n, 534 So.2d 418, 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (emphasis added; citations omitted).
Here, the plaintiff did not show exceptional circumstances which preclude the need or ability to furnish such a bond. We do not accept the court’s comments regarding the receiver’s background and experience as constituting such exceptional circumstances. Therefore, we remand for the circuit court to require the plaintiff or the receiver to furnish such a bond, unless the plaintiff shows exceptional circumstances which preclude the need or ability to furnish such a bond.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
STEVENSON and TÁYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Comprop Inv. Props., Ltd. v. First Tex. Sav. Ass'n, 534 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)