M. A. SMITH, LIQUIDATOR, TRUST COMPANY OF FLORIDA,
v.
HENRY H. TAYLOR, RECEIVER, CITY TRUST COMPANY
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed the appointment of a judicial receiver, holding that the trial court was warranted in appointing a receiver to raise funds for property taxes when the statutory liquidator lacked the means to do so. The court found this situation analogous to a prior case concerning mortgage foreclosure.
Yes, the appointment of a judicial receiver was warranted. The court held that the circumstances, including the default in taxes and the liquidator's lack of funds, justified the receiver's appointment with the power to issue certificates to raise necessary funds.
“This, in the opinion of the Court, warranted the appointment of a judicial receiver with power to issue receiver’s certificates to raise funds for the protection of the property.”
Establishes the court's justification for the receiver's appointment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA mortgage was being foreclosed, but the mortgage document did not include a pledge of rents or a covenant consenting to a receivership. The mortgaged…
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 Receivership cases and more on FLexlaw
It appears to the Court that this case is' in all respects identical with the case of Therrell v. State Life Ins. Co., 107 Fla. 450, 145 Sou. Rep. 220, recently decided by this Court, save and except that the mortgage being foreclosed does not contain any pledge of the rents, issues and profits of the “Julia Tuttle Hotel,” the mortgaged property, nor does the mortgage contain a covenant consenting to a receivership in the event of foreclosure.
. HoweVer, it is alleged in the bill for foreclosure that the taxes are in default and are about to be foreclosed or otherwise enforced, and that the Comptroller’s statutory liquidator, operating under authority of the Comptroller’s office, is' without funds or means to raise funds, with which to pay the taxes due, in order to protect the lien of the mortgage pending foreclosure. This, in the opinion of the Court, warranted the appointment of a judicial receiver with power to issue receiver’s certificates to raise funds for the protection of the property.
This Court is not authorized to interfere with the discretion of the court below as to whom it shall appoint to act as the judicial receiver, even though our view may be that the liquidator could with all propriety be also appointed as judicial receiver in addition to acting as liquidátor, in the interest of economy, and to avoid conflict of jurisdiction between the courts and the Comptroller pendente lite.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Wi-iitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Silver Pines P'rs Ltd. v. The Resolution Tr. Corp., 588 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…o section 697.07, Florida Statutes. See Dixie Music Co. v. Pike, 135 Fla. 671, 185 So. 441 (1938); Bochterle v. Florida Milk Co., 132 Fla. 827, 182 So. 215 (1938); Smith v. State Life Insurance Co., 114 Fla. 371, 153 So. 842 (1934); Smith v. Taylor, 112 Fla. 597, 150 So. 803 (1933); Pasco v. Gamble, 15 Fla. 562 (1876); Overseas Dev. Inc. v. Krause, 323 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert, denied, 336 So. 2d 107 (Fla.1976). See also, Chapman v. Chapman, 526 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Annot., Appointment…
Authorities Cited
- Therrell v. The State Life Ins. Co., 107 Fla. 450 (Fla. 1932)