Kosow v. Kovens

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kosow v. Kovens

473 So. 2d 776, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1870, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17481

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 6, 1985

DocketNo. 85-1174

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 473 So. 2d 776 (Kosow v. Kovens) 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

Kosow v. Kovens, 473 So. 2d 776, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1870, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17481 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On the single question which is in a posture for review,¹ we find no error in the trial court’s appointment of a receiver to preserve the single asset of a partnership pursuant to a winding up of its affairs. See Key Caisee Corp. v. Seashore Shell Co., 470 So.2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Since the trial court did not authorize the receiver to encumber the property with a $31 million mortgage there is no urgency to decide, on the present state of the record, whether development of the land, which is the sole asset, constitutes a “winding up of [partnership] affairs.” Further, an ultimate disposition of defendant’s timely motion to compel arbitration may render academic the instant exercise.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

On the single question which is in a posture for review,¹ we find no error in the trial court’s appointment of a receiver to preserve the single asset of a partnership pursuant to a winding up of its affairs. See Key Caisee Corp. v. Seashore Shell Co., 470 So.2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Since the trial court did not authorize the receiver to encumber the property with a $31 million mortgage there is no urgency to decide, on the present state of the record, whether development of the land, which is the sole asset, constitutes a “winding up of [partnership] affairs.” Further, an ultimate disposition of defendant’s timely motion to compel arbitration may render academic the instant exercise.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

473 So. 2d 776, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1870, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kosow-v-kovens-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack