M.R.D. Properties Ltd. v. Shangri-La Resorts II, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

M.R.D. Properties Ltd. v. Shangri-La Resorts II, Inc.

546 So. 2d 35, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1535, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3612, 1989 WL 68984

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 27, 1989

DocketNo. 89-291

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 546 So. 2d 35 (M.R.D. Properties Ltd. v. Shangri-La Resorts II, Inc.) 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

M.R.D. Properties Ltd. v. Shangri-La Resorts II, Inc., 546 So. 2d 35, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1535, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3612, 1989 WL 68984 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant M.R.D. Properties, Ltd. from a non-final order appointing a receiver to take possession of the mortgaged premises in a mortgage foreclosure action. We have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, Florida Reinvestment Corp. v. Cypress Sav. Ass’n, 509 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (en banc); Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii).

We reverse the order under review because no sworn proof was ever adduced below in support of the plaintiff/mortgagee Shangri-La Resorts II, Inc.’s motion for the appointment of a receiver. No testimony or affidavits were presented to the trial court, and neither the mortgage foreclosure complaint nor the motion for appointment of receiver was sworn to. In the absence of such sworn proof, it is settled that the trial court is precluded from granting a motion to appoint a receiver, as, inter alia, there has been no verified showing, as required, that the party asking for the receiver will, in all likelihood, recover in the underlying mortgage foreclosure action. Colley v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 516 So.2d 344, 346 (Pla. 1st DCA 1987); Boyd v. Banc One Mortgage Corp., 509 So.2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Polycoat Corp. v. City Nat’l Bank, 327 So.2d 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant M.R.D. Properties, Ltd. from a non-final order appointing a receiver to take possession of the mortgaged premises in a mortgage foreclosure action. We have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, Florida Reinvestment Corp. v. Cypress Sav. Ass’n, 509 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (en banc); Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii).

We reverse the order under review because no sworn proof was ever adduced below in support of the plaintiff/mortgagee Shangri-La Resorts II, Inc.’s motion for the appointment of a receiver. No testimony or affidavits were presented to the trial court, and neither the mortgage foreclosure complaint nor the motion for appointment of receiver was sworn to. In the absence of such sworn proof, it is settled that the trial court is precluded from granting a motion to appoint a receiver, as, inter alia, there has been no verified showing, as required, that the party asking for the receiver will, in all likelihood, recover in the underlying mortgage foreclosure action. Colley v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 516 So.2d 344, 346 (Pla. 1st DCA 1987); Boyd v. Banc One Mortgage Corp., 509 So.2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Polycoat Corp. v. City Nat’l Bank, 327 So.2d 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 So. 2d 35, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1535, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3612, 1989 WL 68984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mrd-properties-ltd-v-shangri-la-resorts-ii-inc-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack