Case ID: so2d_473/html/0776-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eleanor C. KOSOW, Appellant, v. Cal KOVENS, Jeffrey A. Kosow and Raymond C. Green, Appellees.
    No. 85-1174.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Aug. 6, 1985.
    
      Arky, Freed, Stearns, Watson, Greer, Weaver & Harris and Bruce W. Greer, Miami, for appellant.
    Sibley, Giblin, Levenson & Glasser and Allen J. Smith, Miami Beach, for appellee Cal Kovens.
    Blackwell, Walker, Gray, Powers, Flick & Hoehl and James E. Tribble, Miami, for appellee Jeffrey A. Kosow.
    Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Striekroot, Miami, for appellee Raymond C. Green.
    Before HENDRY, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

On the single question which is in a posture for review, we find no error in the trial court’s appointment of a receiver to preserve the single asset of a partnership pursuant to a winding up of its affairs. See Key Caisee Corp. v. Seashore Shell Co., 470 So.2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Since the trial court did not authorize the receiver to encumber the property with a $31 million mortgage there is no urgency to decide, on the present state of the record, whether development of the land, which is the sole asset, constitutes a “winding up of [partnership] affairs.” Further, an ultimate disposition of defendant’s timely motion to compel arbitration may render academic the instant exercise.

Affirmed. 
      
      . The trial court did not enter a written order on defendant/appellant’s ore tenus motion to compel arbitration.