Douglas Centre RB-Gem, LLC v. Ocean Bank

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Douglas Centre RB-Gem, LLC v. Ocean Bank

17 So. 3d 306, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2866, 2009 WL 928613

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 8, 2009

DocketNo. 3D09-165

StatusPublished

This text of 17 So. 3d 306 (Douglas Centre RB-Gem, LLC v. Ocean Bank) 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

Douglas Centre RB-Gem, LLC v. Ocean Bank, 17 So. 3d 306, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2866, 2009 WL 928613 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an order appointing a receiver. The mortgage provided for the appointment of a receiver in case of a default. The trial court conducted an evi-dentiary hearing to determine whether the substantive criteria for appointment of a receiver had been satisfied. See Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. Baumgartner, 99 Fla. 987, 128 So. 241 (1930). The trial court’s conclusion that the criteria had been satisfied is supported by the record. See id.; Fla. Reinvestment Corp. v. Cypress Sav. Ass’n, 509 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (en banc); see also Smith v. State Life Ins. Co., 114 Fla. 371, 153 So. 842 (1934). No abuse of discretion has been shown. After review of the transcript, and the competing proposed orders, we find no merit in the appellant’s argument that the written order deviates from the trial court’s oral pronouncement.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an order appointing a receiver. The mortgage provided for the appointment of a receiver in case of a default. The trial court conducted an evi-dentiary hearing to determine whether the substantive criteria for appointment of a receiver had been satisfied. See Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. Baumgartner, 99 Fla. 987, 128 So. 241 (1930). The trial court’s conclusion that the criteria had been satisfied is supported by the record. See id.; Fla. Reinvestment Corp. v. Cypress Sav. Ass’n, 509 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (en banc); see also Smith v. State Life Ins. Co., 114 Fla. 371, 153 So. 842 (1934). No abuse of discretion has been shown. After review of the transcript, and the competing proposed orders, we find no merit in the appellant’s argument that the written order deviates from the trial court’s oral pronouncement.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 So. 3d 306, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2866, 2009 WL 928613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglas-centre-rb-gem-llc-v-ocean-bank-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack