In Re Trudel

Michigan Supreme Court

In Re Trudel

721 N.W.2d 181, 477 Mich. 1202

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 22, 2006

Docket121995

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 721 N.W.2d 181 (In Re Trudel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Trudel, 721 N.W.2d 181, 477 Mich. 1202 (Mich. 2006).

Pincite

Opinions

The motions for appointment of a receiver and for relief from orders are considered, and they are denied, because the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested relief. Petitioner Judicial Tenure Commission seeks the appointment of a receiver in its ongoing collection efforts against respondent former judge. [1203]*1203Petitioner requests a receivership over respondent’s real property but has not shown that all less intrusive means, such as a creditor’s examination, were ineffective. Reed v Reed, 265 Mich App 131, 162 (2005). Indeed, petitioner has not exhausted other remedies to pursue payment by respondent. See Petitpren v Taylor School Dist, 104 Mich App 283, 295 (1981). Our cases note that the appointment of a receiver is a “harsh proceeding, which should only be resorted to in extreme cases.” People v Israelite House of David, 246 Mich 606, 618 (1929); Michigan Minerals, Inc v Williams, 306 Mich 515, 525 (1943). The appointment of a receiver at this juncture would be premature.

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

The motions for appointment of a receiver and for relief from orders are considered, and they are denied, because the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested relief. Petitioner Judicial Tenure Commission seeks the appointment of a receiver in its ongoing collection efforts against respondent former judge. [1203]*1203Petitioner requests a receivership over respondent’s real property but has not shown that all less intrusive means, such as a creditor’s examination, were ineffective. Reed v Reed, 265 Mich App 131, 162 (2005). Indeed, petitioner has not exhausted other remedies to pursue payment by respondent. See Petitpren v Taylor School Dist, 104 Mich App 283, 295 (1981). Our cases note that the appointment of a receiver is a “harsh proceeding, which should only be resorted to in extreme cases.” People v Israelite House of David, 246 Mich 606, 618 (1929); Michigan Minerals, Inc v Williams, 306 Mich 515, 525 (1943). The appointment of a receiver at this juncture would be premature.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

721 N.W.2d 181, 477 Mich. 1202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-trudel-mich-2006.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack