No party, attorney for a party, or person interested in an action shall be appointed receiver in the action except by consent of all of the parties to the action and all other persons holding a recorded ownership interest in or a recorded or filed lien on the property that is subject to the action. No person except a resident of this state shall be appointed or act as receiver of a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or other entity created under the laws of this state. In selecting a receiver, priority consideration shall be afforded to any of the qualified persons nominated by the party seeking the receivership. No nomination of qualified persons for the receivership is binding upon the court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2011–2026 · leading case: Echols v. Echols, 2022 Ohio 1719 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
Echols v. Echols, 2022 Ohio 1719 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3ד” R.C. 2735.02. The trial court deemed that R.”
DeBartolo v. Dussault Moving, Inc., 2011 Ohio 6282 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2ד3 1 Although appellants claim a receiver may only be appointed with the consent of the parties, they have misconstrued the language of R.C. 2735.02. A receiver acts as an arm of the court and has been defined as “‘[a]n indifferent person between the parties to a cause, appointed…”
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. 2900 Presidential Drive, L.L.C., 2014 Ohio 1121 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “R.C. 2735.02 (Qualifications of receiver) states that “[no] party, attorney, or person interested in an action shall be appointed receiver therein except by consent of the parties.”
Dyczkiewycz v. Tremont Ridge Phase 1 Ltd. P'ship, 2012 Ohio 5173 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2דTo support its position, Tremont Ridge cites its proposed expert’s opinion, the Ohio Rules of Professional Responsibility, and R.C. 2735.02, which provides in part that “no party, attorney, or person interested in an action shall be appointed receiver therein except by consent…”
Gemmell v. Anthony, 2024 Ohio 3129 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “” Anthony asserts that “based upon the [unwaivable] conflict of interest, Martin cannot continue as Receiver after the August 29, 2019 Judgment Entry, and therefore lacks standing to bring a contempt Hocking App.”
Clarkwestern Dietrich Bldg. Sys., L.L.C. v. Certified Steel Stud Assn., 2017 Ohio 8129 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “{¶ 19} The Association further argues that the trial court's appointment of a receiver to investigate and prosecute the breach of fiduciary duty claim "threatens to violate the receiver's core characteristic of neutrality * * * [b]y conditioning further payment to the receiver…”
Steuer Revocable Trust v. Strauss, 2025 Ohio 2111 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). “{¶10} In their first assignment of error, the Strauss Defendants contend that “[t]the trial court erred in appointing a receiver because it did not have jurisdiction or authority over the matter due to a lack of personal jurisdiction over a non-party pursuant to the Ohio Rules…”
Monroeville v. Gray Matter Advisors, Inc., 2026 Ohio 2110 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “Thus, the March 11 order appointing the Receiver is a judgment that affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding, R.”
Edelsten v. Mawardi, 137 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). “Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2735.02 (emphasis added); see also Metro.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.