Brickell Construction Corp. v. Pujol

329 So. 2d 340, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14033
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 9, 1976
DocketNo. 75-1372
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 329 So. 2d 340 (Brickell Construction Corp. v. Pujol) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brickell Construction Corp. v. Pujol, 329 So. 2d 340, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14033 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal seeking reversal of an order appointing a receiver in a mortgage foreclosure action.

Appellant-defendant, Brickell Construction Corporation, on August 10, 1972 obtained financing from TMC Mortgage Investors, a Massachusetts business trust, for the development of a 200 unit condominium complex known as Golden Gate. In May 1975 the defendant corporation defaulted in its payments and plaintiffs, as trustees of TMC, filed suit seeking to foreclose the mortgage and to recover damages. In addition, plaintiffs prayed for the appointment of a receiver pendente lite to which they alleged they were entitled pursuant to the terms of the mortgage. The trial court, after hearing, appointed a receiver over all the real and personal property of the Golden Gate Condominium development. Defendant Brickell Construction Corporation appeals.

Defendant first argues that the trial court committed reversible error in permitting plaintiffs to maintain this suit in that a trust is not a legal entity and, therefore, no one can sue on behalf of a name.

The record clearly reflects that TMC Mortgage Investors is the holder of the [341]*341promissory note and mortgage and plaintiffs, as trustees of TMC, are entitled to maintain this action on its behalf. See Boyd v. Boulevard National Bank, Fla.App.1975, 306 So.2d 551; Your Construction Center, Inc. v. Gross, Fla.App.1975, 316 So.2d 596.

We also considered defendant’s second contention that the trial court erred in appointing a receiver where the plaintiffs did not have clean hands and where no emergency existed, and conclude it contains no merit.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Corcoran v. Brody
347 So. 2d 689 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Brickell Construction Co. v. Hartman
332 So. 2d 119 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
329 So. 2d 340, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brickell-construction-corp-v-pujol-fladistctapp-1976.