Warshall v. Price

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Warshall v. Price

617 So. 2d 751, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4158, 1993 WL 113421

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 14, 1993

DocketNo. 92-2527

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 617 So. 2d 751 (Warshall v. Price) 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

Warshall v. Price, 617 So. 2d 751, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4158, 1993 WL 113421 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinions

FARMER, Judge.

Before any trial has been held and any final judgment entered, a motion for the appointment of a receiver of the property of the defendant is a drastic matter constituting a taking of property and requires a showing of exigent circumstances. Electro Mechanical Products Inc. v. Borona, 324 So.2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). After a plaintiff has acquired a money judgment against a defendant who carries on business as a sole proprietorship, the situation has changed.

The reasons for arguing against a receiver have disappeared. After all, the judgment creditor can now simply send the sheriff out to the judgment debtor’s business with the unsatisfied writ of execution and levy against all property of the judgment debtor in sight and, thereby, effectively put the debtor out of business. In this circumstance, where the judgment creditor elects the less drastic remedy of a receiver to take charge of the debtor’s accounts receivable, the debtor can hardly be heard to argue that the receiver is more harsh than the levy.

We find no error in this trial judge’s decision to grant a receiver of the judgment debtor’s property on this judgment creditor’s simple showing that he holds an unsatisfied writ of execution and without showing any “exigent circumstances.” The unsatisfied writ was all the exigent circumstance he needed.

AFFIRMED.

STONE, J., concurs specially with opinion. POLEN, J., dissents with opinion.

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

FARMER, Judge.

Before any trial has been held and any final judgment entered, a motion for the appointment of a receiver of the property of the defendant is a drastic matter constituting a taking of property and requires a showing of exigent circumstances. Electro Mechanical Products Inc. v. Borona, 324 So.2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). After a plaintiff has acquired a money judgment against a defendant who carries on business as a sole proprietorship, the situation has changed.

The reasons for arguing against a receiver have disappeared. After all, the judgment creditor can now simply send the sheriff out to the judgment debtor’s business with the unsatisfied writ of execution and levy against all property of the judgment debtor in sight and, thereby, effectively put the debtor out of business. In this circumstance, where the judgment creditor elects the less drastic remedy of a receiver to take charge of the debtor’s accounts receivable, the debtor can hardly be heard to argue that the receiver is more harsh than the levy.

We find no error in this trial judge’s decision to grant a receiver of the judgment debtor’s property on this judgment creditor’s simple showing that he holds an unsatisfied writ of execution and without showing any “exigent circumstances.” The unsatisfied writ was all the exigent circumstance he needed.

AFFIRMED.

STONE, J., concurs specially with opinion. POLEN, J., dissents with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

617 So. 2d 751, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4158, 1993 WL 113421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warshall-v-price-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack