From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Key Caisee Corp. v. Seashore Shell

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jun 11, 1985
470 So. 2d 792 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Opinion

Nos. 84-2644, 84-2645.

June 11, 1985.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Monroe County, M. Ignatius Lester, J.

Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash, Block England and Mitchell R. Bloomberg, Miami, for appellant.

Taylor, Brion, Buker Greene and Arnaldo Velez, Miami, for appellees.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and JORGENSON, JJ.


The trial court found that service upon an employee of an attorney was valid service on the appellant corporation. The attorney was the designated resident agent of the appellant corporation and his office had been designated as the corporate office. The employee was served at the attorney's office between the hours of 10 A.M. to 12 noon on a normal working day.

The attorney was absent from the office at the time of service.

The trial court also appointed a receiver to facilitate the accomplishment of the purposes of a partnership. Among other things, it empowered the receiver to arrange financing in order to continue the operation of the partnership and preserve its principal asset in order to accomplish an orderly winding up of the partnership affairs. We find no error in either ruling and affirm. Karafilakis v. Stavroulakis, 112 Fla. 303, 150 So. 277 (1933); Allen v. Hawley, 6 Fla. 142 (1855); Arison Shipping Company v. Klosters Rederi A/S, 259 So.2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Sec. §§ 48.081(3), 48.091, Fla. Stat. (1983). Compare State v. Tedder, 103 Fla. 1083, 138 So. 643 (1932).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Key Caisee Corp. v. Seashore Shell

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jun 11, 1985
470 So. 2d 792 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
Case details for

Key Caisee Corp. v. Seashore Shell

Case Details

Full title:KEY CAISEE CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. SEASHORE…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Jun 11, 1985

Citations

470 So. 2d 792 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Citing Cases

Puma Enterprises Corp. v. Vitale

For these reasons, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in appointing a receiver without…

Kosow v. Kovens

On the single question which is in a posture for review, we find no error in the trial court's appointment of…