O.C.G.A. § 9-8-8 (2019)

Annotations

Cross references. Officers of court generally, § 15-13-1 et seq.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Court may modify orders of appointment. - Since the receiver is an officer of the court, the receiver is under the control of the judge, and if the order appointing the receiver operates harshly or disastrously, the judge may modify it upon proper application. Graham v. Fuller Elec. Co., 75 Ga. 878, 1885 Ga. LEXIS 261 (1885). Receiver is officer of court and the property held is in custodia legis and the court has power to control it. Field v. Jones, 11 Ga. 413, 1852 Ga. LEXIS 56 (1852); Zorn v. Wheatley & Co., 61 Ga. 437, 1878 Ga. LEXIS 146 (1878); Tindall v. Westcott, 113 Ga. 1114, 39 S.E. 450, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 508 (1901); Shaw v. Caldwell, 229 Ga. 87, 189 S.E.2d 684, 1972 Ga. LEXIS 509 (1972), superseded by statute as stated in Aon Risk Servs. v. Commercial & Military Sys. Co., 270 Ga. App. 510, 607 S.E.2d 157, 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 1423 (2004). A receiver is an officer of the court and is not an agent or subject to the control of

anyone else; hence, the actions of the receiver in the receiver’s operation of the property could not be imputed to anyone else. Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Newton, 157 Ga. App. 436, 278 S.E.2d 85, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 1859 (1981). It is duty of court to protect property held by its receiver and this may be done by injunction. Marshall v. Lockett, 76 Ga. 289, 1886 Ga. LEXIS 17 (1886). Failure to obtain leave to file suit against receivers. - Dismissal of the plaintiff’s lawsuit against the receivers was upheld because the plaintiff failed to obtain leave from the trial court in the lawsuit against a former business partner before filing a separate lawsuit against the receivers appointed in that case. Considine v. Murphy, 297 Ga. 164, 773 S.E.2d 176, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 354 (2015). Duty to protect assets includes power to compel delivery of the property to the receiver. Cobb v. Black, 34 Ga. 162, 1865 Ga. LEXIS 20 (1865). Court may, in its discretion, direct receiver to bring suit to protect the

property. Hardwock v. Hook, 8 Ga. 354, 1850 Ga. LEXIS 61 (1850); Sterling Elec. Co. v. Augusta Tel. & Elec. Co., 124 Ga. 371, 52 S.E. 541, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 717 (1905). Receiver cannot be sued without permission of court appointing the receiver. Hollifield v. Wrightsville &. T.R.R., 99 Ga. 365, 27 S.E. 715, 1896 Ga. LEXIS 409 (1896). Suits against court-appointed receivers. - If a trial court appoints a receiver under O.C.G.A. § 14-2-1431(c), not under O.C.G.A. § 9-8-8, nothing precludes an intervening party from suing the receiver, particularly when the harm at issue cannot be resolved by the receiver’s removal. Vautrot v. West, 272 Ga. App. 715, 613 S.E.2d 19, 2005 Ga. App. LEXIS 183 (2005). Receiver has no authority to dispose of property in the receiver’s hands, in absence of order or decree authorizing the disposal from the court under which the receiver holds appointment. Gray v. Bradford, 194 Ga. 492, 22 S.E.2d 43, 1942 Ga. LEXIS 599 (1942). Court will not authorize receiver to sell assets in the receiver’s custody without receiving value therefor. The court has no authority to do so. Northeast Factor & Disct. Co. v. Mortgage Invs., Inc., 107 Ga. App. 705, 131 S.E.2d 221, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 962 (1963). Receiver and court presumed to act properly in sale of assets. - It is presumed that both the receiver and the judge of the court, in the making and confirmation of the sale, have faithfully discharged their duty. Northeast Factor & Disct. Co. v. Mortgage Invs., Inc., 107 Ga. App. 705, 131 S.E.2d 221, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 962 (1963). Expansion of receiver’s powers to effectuate court ordered duties. - Trial court properly entered an order expanding the powers of a receiver who was appointed to oversee the operation of a limited liability company (LLC) during

the pendency of a judicial dissolution of the LLC where the order was based on an affidavit the receiver submitted that indicated the receiver was unable to fulfill the receiver’s duties due to the actions of one of the 50% owners of the LLC. Ga. Rehab. Ctr., Inc. v. Newnan Hosp., 284 Ga. 68, 663 S.E.2d 204, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 543 (2008). Court, by continuing receivership, had jurisdiction to make final disposition of property according to the respective interests of the parties, and to this end could order a division by sale, if necessary. Roberts v. Federal Land Bank, 180 Ga. 832, 181 S.E. 180, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 573 (1935). Receiver cannot place property in the receiver’s possession beyond jurisdiction of court, with no authority for doing so, and thereby free the receiver from accounting to the court appointing the receiver for the funds entrusted to the receiver, at least to the extent of claims outstanding against the fund. Broyles v. Baumstark, 87 Ga. App. 155, 73 S.E.2d 257, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 636 (1952). Receiver under duty to report business or property loss to court. - If it should become apparent that, under the receivership, the business is operating at a loss, it would be the duty of the receiver, or of any interested party, to report that fact promptly to the court and seek further instructions and directions in the matter. Tri-State Broadcasting Co. v. Pesterfield, 216 Ga. 381, 116 S.E.2d 556, 1960 Ga. LEXIS 478 (1960). Notice in proceedings for removal of receiver. - It is only in cases where the receiver’s conduct is called in question and where it is sought to make the receiver liable, or where the receiver is called upon to account or to make return, that the receiver is entitled to notice or to a hearing in proceedings to revoke the order of appointment. Howard v. Lowell Mach. Co., 75 Ga. 325, 1885 Ga. LEXIS 126 (1885).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 66 Am. Jur. 2d, Receivers, §§ 1 et seq.,, 57 et seq., 93 et seq., 176 et seq.

C.J.S. 75 C.J.S., Receivers, §§ 93 et seq., 142 et seq., 170.

ALR. Duty of receiver to apply to court before

making outlays for improvement, repairs, or upkeep of property, 79 A.L.R. 164.

9-8-9. To which court receivers of corporations amenable. Receivers of corporations shall be amenable to and shall make their returns to the superior court of the county where they reside at the time of the appointment. History. Orig. Code 1863, § 275; Code 1868, § 269; Code 1873, § 278; Code 1882,

§ 278; Civil Code 1895, § 4912; Civil Code 1910, § 5487; Code 1933, § 55-313.

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 66 Am. Jur. 2d, Receivers, §§ 176 et seq., 182 et seq., 188 et seq., 192 et seq.

C.J.S. 75 C.J.S., Receivers, § 142 et seq.