Appeals Regarding Receiverships

In receivership, the custodial responsibility of a property in dispute will be with the receiver.  A judgment which settles all the legal issues and rights between the parties is final and appealable although further proceedings may be necessary for executing the order or if some incidental issue may still remain to be settled.  If a trial court in a receivership action makes an order resolving an issue in connection with the receivership, that order has the same force and effect as any other final court order.  Such an order is considered a final appealable order.[i] Also, issues relating to denial of U.S. priority in state receivership are reviewable before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The appointment of a receiver will not finally dispose of a property dispute.  In the absence of a specific statute and a final judgment, an order appointing a receiver is not generally reviewable.  However, in certain situations, an order appointing a receiver can be reviewed and they are:

  • when the order settles all matters among the parties in court,
  • when the order, is inextricably related and is immediately appealable, are reviewed, or
  • when federal or state statute authorizes review.

Moreover, in certain states an interlocutory order appointing a receiver is considered as an order affecting a substantial right made in a special proceeding, and thus made a final appealable order.[ii]

Similarly, an appellate court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an order refusing to appoint a receiver.  The appointment of a receiver is largely a matter of sound judicial discretion.  The trial court considers all facts and then appoints, or refuses to appoint a receiver.  The appellate court need not interfere with the exercise of trial court discretion.[iii] However, if the order of refusal comes within a statute making certain types of interlocutory or post judgment orders appealable, then the order of refusal is appealable.

Additionally, an order discharging or vacating the appointment of a receiver is generally not directly appealable.  However, when there is a specific statutory provision allowing appeal from an order discharging or vacating the appointment of a receiver, such order is appealable.

[i]Revier v. Spragins, 810 S.W.2d 298 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1991)

[ii]Bank One, Columbus v. O’Brien, 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 5827 (Ohio Ct. App., Franklin County Nov. 19, 1992)

[iii]Popp v. Daisy Gold Mining Co., 22 Utah 457 (Utah 1900)


Inside Appeals Regarding Receiverships