Rescom Investment, Inc. v. Strategic Consulting & Managing, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rescom Investment, Inc. v. Strategic Consulting & Managing, Inc.

635 So. 2d 1061, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4120, 1994 WL 151351

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 29, 1994

DocketNo. 93-02771

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 635 So. 2d 1061 (Rescom Investment, Inc. v. Strategic Consulting & Managing, 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

Rescom Investment, Inc. v. Strategic Consulting & Managing, Inc., 635 So. 2d 1061, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4120, 1994 WL 151351 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, who are the mortgagors in this cause, challenge the non-final order of the trial court appointing a receiver for the subject real property and setting the appellee’s bond for receivership at $10,000. Appellee is the holder of the second mortgage and promissory note on the property. The right of the appellee to the appointment of a receiver in the event of a default was provided for in the mortgage. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(D).

We affirm with regard to the trial court’s appointment of a receiver, concluding that there was substantial evidence in the record to indicate that appellants defaulted on their mortgage obligations. We conclude, however, that the trial court erred when it set appellee’s bond for the receivership at $10,-000.

The applicant for the appointment of a receiver is required to post a bond “sufficient in amount to protect the opposing party from any losses sustained should it ultimately be concluded that the appointment of a receiver was improvident, unless exceptional circumstances are shown which preclude the need or ability to furnish such a bond.” Comprop Inv. Properties, Ltd. v. First Texas Sav. Ass’n, 534 So.2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). In this case there were no exceptional circumstances, and uncontested testimony showed the property to be worth two to two and one-half million dollars. Clearly, a $10,000 bond is inadequate. Cohen v. Rubin, 554 So.2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (trial court erred in setting receivership bond at $1,000 where property was valued at $1,400,000).

We, therefore, reverse that portion of the order which set the appellee’s bond for the receivership at $10,000 and, as in Cohen, we “remand with instructions to the trial court to hold a hearing, guided by the principles of Parker Tampa Two, Inc. v. Somerset Development Corp., 544 So.2d 1018 (Fla.1989), to set a reasonable and adequate bond.” 554 So.2d at 6.

We find no merit to the other points raised by appellants in this appeal.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, who are the mortgagors in this cause, challenge the non-final order of the trial court appointing a receiver for the subject real property and setting the appellee’s bond for receivership at $10,000. Appellee is the holder of the second mortgage and promissory note on the property. The right of the appellee to the appointment of a receiver in the event of a default was provided for in the mortgage. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(D).

We affirm with regard to the trial court’s appointment of a receiver, concluding that there was substantial evidence in the record to indicate that appellants defaulted on their mortgage obligations. We conclude, however, that the trial court erred when it set appellee’s bond for the receivership at $10,-000.

The applicant for the appointment of a receiver is required to post a bond “sufficient in amount to protect the opposing party from any losses sustained should it ultimately be concluded that the appointment of a receiver was improvident, unless exceptional circumstances are shown which preclude the need or ability to furnish such a bond.” Comprop Inv. Properties, Ltd. v. First Texas Sav. Ass’n, 534 So.2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). In this case there were no exceptional circumstances, and uncontested testimony showed the property to be worth two to two and one-half million dollars. Clearly, a $10,000 bond is inadequate. Cohen v. Rubin, 554 So.2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (trial court erred in setting receivership bond at $1,000 where property was valued at $1,400,000).

We, therefore, reverse that portion of the order which set the appellee’s bond for the receivership at $10,000 and, as in Cohen, we “remand with instructions to the trial court to hold a hearing, guided by the principles of Parker Tampa Two, Inc. v. Somerset Development Corp., 544 So.2d 1018 (Fla.1989), to set a reasonable and adequate bond.” 554 So.2d at 6.

We find no merit to the other points raised by appellants in this appeal.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

635 So. 2d 1061, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4120, 1994 WL 151351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rescom-investment-inc-v-strategic-consulting-managing-inc-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack