MRS. F. J. BOCHTERLE, SOMETIMES KNOWN AS ALIDA BOCHTERLE, ET VIR,
v.
FLORIDA MILK COMPANY, INC.
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 reversed the Circuit Court's appointment of a receiver pendente lite for a married woman's separate property (a coffee shop and dining room) without notice to the defendant, holding that the allegations of insolvency and the defendant's intent to leave the state were insufficient to justify ex parte appointment of a receiver.
The Court held that the allegations were insufficient to justify ex parte appointment of a receiver. A receiver should not be appointed without notice except in cases of greatest emergency requiring immediate court interference to prevent irreparable injury, and the complaint must set forth facts and circumstances with particularity to justify such extraordinary action.
“A receiver should not be appointed except on notice to the party whose property is to be divested, except in cases of the greatest emergency demanding the immediate interference of the court for the prevention of irreparable injury; and in such a case the bill should set forth with particularity the facts and circumstances relied on to justify an ex parte exercise of this extraordinary power, and should be sworn to or supported by the affidavit of complainant or other competent person.”
Establishes the stringent requirements for ex parte receivership appointment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. F. J. Bochterle operated a coffee shop and dining room business alleged to be her separate statutory estate. Florida Milk Company sued to subject…
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 Insolvency cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court appointing, without notice, a receiver pendente lite of a coffee shop and dining room alleged to be the “separate statutory estate” of a married woman, the suit being to subject the property to pay for milk and dairy products purchased by the married woman for use in the coffee shop and dining room business operated by her.
“A wife’s separate estate is an equitable estate in property the legal title to which is in some other person for her benefit. In equity such separate estate may be subjected to the payment of the debts of the wife, if not restrained by the legal effect of the instrument creating the estate.”
“A wife’s separate property in Florida is that which she holds in her own right by virtue of the Act of March 6, 1845; by Section 26, Article IV, Constitution of 1868; and by Section 1, Article XI, Constitution 1885.” Headnotes 17 and 18 of Blood v. Hunt, 97 Fla. 551, 121 So. 886.
“A receiver should not be appointed except on notice to the party whose property is to be. divested, except in cases of the greatest emergency demanding the immediate interference of the court for the prevention of irreparable injury; and in such a case the bill should set forth with particularity the facts and circumstances relied on to justify an ex parte exercise of this extraordinary power, and should be sworn *829to or supported by the affidavit' of complainant or other competent person.” Jones v. Rakestraw, 59 Fla. 537, 51 So. 927.
Jacksonville Ferry Co. v. Stockton, 40 Fla. 141, 23 So. 557; Poynter v. Smith, 120 Fla. 469, 162 So. 874; See Sections 73 and 74 of 1931 Chancery Act, and annotations by Edward McCarthy, Jr.
The bill of complaint filed February 8, 1938, alleges :
“That all of said milk and dairy products were purchased for use 'in the operation of and conduct of said business. That said defendant still continues to conduct said business, but expects in the near future on the closing of the season to close said business and leave the State of Florida, and that plaintiff would have no recourse for the satisfaction of its debt if a receiver is not appointed to sequester the rents and profits of- said business until a final decree can be obtained in this cause, and, if necessary, to sell the aforesaid properties. That plaintiff is informed, and believes, and so alleges that the amount which would be realized solely from the sale of such properties, after deducting expenses of detention and sale of said goods, would not be sufficient to pay the indebtedness of plaintiff. That from reading the letter from J. Carl Lambdin, which is hereto attached, it will appear that Mrs. Bochterle is insolvent.”
Such allegations are insufficient to justify the appointment of a receiver without notice to the defendants.
Reversed.
Whitfif.ld, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Chapman, 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)…ult and after the mortgagee had exercised its right to receive rentals and had made a written demand therefor pursuant to 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,…
-
Overseas Dev., Inc. v. Krause, 323 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…ome circumstances, it ' is not available .to [*680] the appellant here inasmuch as there is no general rule requiring service prior to the appointment of the receiver whenever an emergency exists. See the rule in Bochterle v. Florida Milk Co., 1938, 132 Fla. 827, 182 So. 215 and Dixie Music Co. v. Pike, 1938, 135 Fla. 671, 185 So. 441. Under the present circumstances, it is clear that defendant had adequate notice of the application and was in no way prejudiced by the failure to be served with process befor…
-
Valeria Grandini v. Carizo, 891 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…therefore, necessitated the appointment of a receiver. Freedman v. Fox, 67 So. 2d 692 (Fla.1953); McAllister Hotel v. Schatzberg, 40 So. 2d 201 (Fla.1949); News-Journal Corp. v. Gore, 147 Fla. 217, 2 So. 2d 741 (1941); Bochterle v. Florida Milk Co., 132 Fla. 827, 182 So. 215 (1938); Recarey v. Rader, 320 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). For the above reasons, the order appointing a receiver is hereby reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.…
Authorities Cited
- Blood v. Hunt, 97 Fla. 551 (Fla. 1929)
- Sweetland v. Sweetland, 121 So. 886 (Fla. 1929)
- The Jacksonville Ferry Co. v. Stockton, 40 Fla. 141 (Fla. 1898)
- Jones v. Rakestraw, 59 Fla. 537 (Fla. 1910)
- Poynter v. Smith, 120 Fla. 469 (Fla. 1935)