REEMA HOSPITALITY, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLANT,
v.
MSC1 2007-IQ13 DIKE ROAD, LLC, ETC., 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 foreclosure receivership case, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's appointment of a receiver but reversed the court's authorization of a fixed hourly fee for the receiver's services, holding that receiver compensation must be determined based on the nature, complexity, and scope of specific services rendered rather than a uniform hourly rate.
The court affirmed the appointment of a receiver as authorized under Florida law, but reversed the order authorizing a fixed hourly fee for all services. The court held that receiver fees must be determined based on the scope and complexity of various activities, with different services potentially supporting different rates, rather than applying a single fixed hourly rate to all work.
[1] A trial court may appoint a receiver in a pending foreclosure action.
[2] A receiver seeking a fee award bears the burden of establishing a basis for the requested fees through competent evidence.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 law authorizes the trial court to award reasonable fees to a receiver for services and expenses.”
Establishes the legal basis for receiver compensation awards under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReema Hospitality, Inc. and Hasmukh Patel appealed a non-final order in a pending foreclosure action. The trial court appointed a receiver and authori…
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 Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
Reema Hospitality, Inc. and Hasmukh Patel appeal a non-final order appointing a receiver in a pending foreclosure action. We affirm the trial court’s decision to appoint a receiver without discussion, but reverse the order to the extent that it authorized a fixed hourly fee for all services performed by the receiver.
Florida law authorizes the trial court to award reasonable fees to a receiver for services and expenses. In obtaining a fee award, the receiver has the burden to establish a basis for the award of fees he or she seeks through affidavits, testimony, depositions or other competent evidence. Lewis v. Gramil Corp., 94 So.2d 174, 176 (Fla.1957). There is no fixed fee schedule. Rather, it is within the trial court’s discretion to set an appropriate receiver’s fee, based on the circumstances of the case. Id. Among factors to be considered in setting a receiver’s compensation are the nature and complexity of the services rendered, the character of the property involved, the amount of money coming into the receiver’s hands, the time and responsibility involved, and the beneficial results of the receiver’s management. Id. at 177.
While sufficient fees should be allowed to induce competent people to serve as receivers, receiverships should be administered as economically as reasonably possible. Thus, fees for services performed by a receiver must be just, but moderate, rather than generous. Id. To determine an appropriate fee, the court must conduct a hearing to determine the value of the receiver’s services and what compensation would be just. In order to properly evaluate the receiver’s compensation, the court must consider the scope and complexity of the receiver’s various activities, as different services may support different rates. The appropriate hourly rate should be based upon the reasonable rate for similar services, making a fixed hourly fee for all services inappropriate.
For these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order appointing receiver, but reverse the order authorizing a fixed hourly fee for the receiver.
AFFIRMED in. part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.