OMAR ROMAY, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
CARIBEVISION HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Romay appeals a trial court's order appointing a receiver to manage a joint venture between Romay and Caribevision Holdings, in which each party originally owned fifty percent. The appellate court affirmed the receivership appointment, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding an imminent need to preserve the joint venture's status quo during ongoing ownership disputes.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by appointing a receiver. The appointment was authorized under Florida Statutes sections 607.1432(6) and 608.4492(6) and was warranted based on the imminent need to preserve the status quo of the joint venture during the pendency of the parties' litigation.
[1] A trial court's appointment of a receiver is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
[2] Florida Statutes authorize the appointment of a receiver for a joint venture to prevent irreparable harm.
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“an imminent need to preserve the status quo”
Establishes the trial court's basis for finding that receivership was necessary to protect the joint venture during pending litigation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRomay and Caribevision Holdings each owned fifty percent of a joint venture consisting of two Delaware entities. A dispute arose concerning the validi…
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 Appointment Of Receiver cases and more on FLexlaw
Pursuant to Rule 9.180(a)(8)(D) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appellants (“Romay”) seek review of the trial court’s non-final order appointing a receiver to take control of the assets and business operations of the parties’ joint venture.1 Upon its formation, Romay and the Appellees (“Caribevision”) each owned fifty percent of the joint venture. The parties’ dispute involves, among other things, the validity of equity adjustments in favor of Romay that affect the parties’ respective ownership interest in the joint venture.
Caribevision asserts that a receivership is necessary to prevent irreparable harm to the parties’ joint venture, and that, consistent with our holding in Romay v. Caribevision Holdings, Inc., 147 So.3d 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014), sections 607.1432(6) and 608.4492(6)2 of the Florida Statutes authorize the trial court to appoint a receiver for the joint venture.
After conducting an evidentiary hearing over the course of two days, the trial court entered a detailed and extensive order granting Caribevision’s motion for appointment of a receiver. In its order, the trial court recognizes “an imminent need to preserve the status quo” of the joint venture .during the pendency of the parties’ continuing litigation concerning the ownership of the joint venture. Further, the order appointing a receiver contemplates that the receiver will resume the holding of board of directors meetings, which have not occurred despite a prior trial court order- — approved by this Court3- — -that ap*1056pointed a referee to conduct such meetings.
We review the appointment of a receiver under an abuse of discretion standard. Puma Enters. Corp. v. Vitale, 566 So.2d 1343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Based on the record before this Court, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by entering the order on appeal.
Therefore', without expressing any opinion as to the parties’ underlying dispute, we affirm the trial court’s order appointing a receiver.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Puma Enters. Corp. v. Vitale, 566 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Romay v. Caribevision Holdings, Inc., 147 So. 3d 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)