tory appeal from an order pointing a receiver slash farm i think it's important from the point of view of the apple lots from my clients to start out with the proposition that my client through a limited liability company harrison farm management l l c was managing this farm by forty of his father who had the manager of this farm for decades to put it in the hardware state bank as the farm in which this this order the sound appealed to this court is the culmination of a proceeding where initially the circuit court judge s the parties to suggest for us four or five or six actions were made by the parties from february of two thousand and twelve through  some of the did the circuit court judge judge flannel didn't take any action had any of those suggestions then all of a sudden september twenty eighth twelve the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion after this issue ha been under consideration for months and months and months to appoint the hardware state bank as the firm and to do that it never been suggested before that was not in the cards in all the  proceedings on the farm manager and i'm one day's notice with no showing that this bank could even manage the farm that was made in the court judge flannel pointed the didn't make it clear whether the harbor's even did for management so in an ex parte conversation he made a phone call over to the bank never said who he called or with whom he was speaking and examine them off the record as to whether they even did from metro he announced later in the hearing that they that they had assured him that they called over to the bank asked them if they even did what he was about to appoint them to do so he appointed them as a fire manager he also disclosed on the record that he was a shareholder in the h that he owns stock and so even though the player suggested four or five other fire managers over a period of months which he never appointed he chose in an emergency hearing i want days notice with no showing in a motion to  circuited that the judge for no reason in terms of protecting the others or accepting this one appoints this bank to do what it did i position as the court knows from the grips is that is an extraordinary remedy it's not a garden variety gee whiz it seems like a good idea which is really all that just plain lever said by any of the receivers writ large he said well we're one side is family so you know side of the family i think it's a good idea if we have an independent person management firm that's not the standard for appointing a receipt respect so had there been some showing that as a matter due process and all because they weren't a part we've argued below which is for the court of the moment they were a necessary part for whatever reason i don't know the plaintiff has chosen not to join them as a party  with the severance for them your honor but by the action he took he triggered severance clause it if indeed he could effectively terminate a contract of a party that wasn't before the contract and decide whether it's valid or invalid if while harrison cvs money should receive this is a multimillion dollar farming operation there's a way in a to create a fashion a decree at the end of a case to an equity one justified under these facts mean this is a situation this is an age where where i'm happy to say my client problem the profit of the farm how do we know you can't say there how do we know farm the most that the plaintiffs ever raise about that was that roger sr use some of the money twenty thousand thirty thousand dollars to pay the legal expenses in  the farm in its proceeds and that my client owns one half of the farm and the produce my clients my clients dispute that the plaintiffs have fifty percent ownership any way you cut that my clients own fifty percent of the and if the court ends up adjudicating this case really with the first amended complaint my clients own fifty percent of the farm and fifty percent of the proceeds just flannel has viewed this that my client cannot touch the proceeds the county has that been challenged in any form or fashion in the lower court hearings were three hundred thirty five thousand dollars that was deposited from the marketing of the two hundred two thousand and twelve rop was accounted for and all the money was there except six thousand dollars to pay taxes to moultrie county your honor this is this really isn't a matter of conjecture or pleading contentions the money that all it can be pointed to is that some of the money were used was used to defend the case which is an interesting question if my clients are disabled by all these orders freeze orders junction orders without findings received orders by clients are frozen and locked up then they've been sued in a partition case it can't defend themselves i mean since fifty percent of the money is considered to be theirs i don't understand how they they can have that are taken away from them all the money frozen it's a year out i don't understand why they're them i'm interested to hear what council has the said justified if they have a financial stake in a party or or in the controversy unless it's at the minimum it's stick so well how many of the baker kind of the judge didn't say i don't i don't your question i mean this this party is now control of all the money of the farm they're managing the fire incidents lucian of my clients has this possessed my clients of their property and he's has a stake in the party that is going to get these two to to manage the farm i think in the context of this case i can't believe there's a horrible as opposed to just coming before ross and stock you're waiting in spirit the trial judge would be the other option yes well every time my clients serve depositions bank because it's our position that appointee receivers an extraordinary remedy is a matter that there were no grounds whatsoever to appoint a receiver and whether he recused himself or not i think the fact that he had a or otherwise either way goes to the issue of whether any receiver and this receiver should have been appointed in this situation because if he's go that's the farm land that's the subject of this partition and accounts mr nathan since said argument that he wants you to start with the proposition that his client defendant while harrison was managing his  operated under a partnership agreement for approximately twenty seven years prior to filing this case now for the last ten of those years during that twenty seven year time period hertz farm management incorporated and independent third party farm manager managed the farm with the agreement of all parties mr harrison sr mr rogers and sr unilateral unilaterally fire that farm manager seize control of the farm and hire his sons company as clients on decisions with respect to partnership on a regular basis for a number of years prior to this case being filed when he when he fired hertz and move forward to point his son all that know the appointment of a a receiver or in this case a farm manager is a highly fact intensive inquiry and the reason you do that is is to protect and preserve the property and the income therefrom for the benefit of all those entitled mr nathan talks about how his clients have been deprived of property and the court has seized the farm well that's not the case at all we've pledged that they if they can prove that they own all of it through the partition proceeding that's fine i think that probably the court will then order that all the proceeds from the farm be paid over to them we're not we're not trying to  know take their property in the courts not trying to do that the court is trying to get a handle on this case from a case management perspective and why that is because you know one of our counsels for an accounting from a judicial economy standpoint the court has to you know reach a stopping point at some point you know if the appellant's were left in control of this farm during the pendency of a case you know i don't i don't see how we could ever get a handle and going forward i think essentially and hopefully obviously then on the resolution of this matter that would cut the request for an accounting office to take our manager was appointed and you know there was a default order actually entered against roger harrison sr and that and he was the only defendant with respect to count two pertained and that was a request for an accounting so there was an accounting that was made  don't know that go back to the day it does go back to the date but it doesn't go forward and bring it up to where we are now i believe where we are now being the time to time the new form and you're correct it was a point potential for managers both sides we did that i think probably a month or two passed and the court came out and asked the parties to contact blackberry x services and mr tom warble so far made it  period of time where nothing happened on that issue and we felt with the harvest season in it that we really wanted to get a farm manager in place with the prospect of the crop being harvested yes possibly not being able to  where that grain was going to end up or where it was going to be sold what happened so that's why we turned it in called an emergency motion for a farm manager the court did act on it but it was kind of stop and go asked questions of both sides and directly wired of the defendants it appeared with respect to their motion and of perspective our emergency motion for the farm manager this was not a new issue this was a motion that we filed back in february it was heard in march it was not a those were never called for here and by the defendants i believe by local rule those can be those motions can be considered no one forward or wait after ninety days at least which we argued to the court and certainly believe show the farm proceeds were be misapplied the distributions were being made to mr harrison our right and for his legal defense in the case without any like distribution being made to our clients one of the distributions was even made in direct violation of one of the trial court's orders so you know which one is what order there was in order to not distribute any of the about i believe that the amount was twenty thousand six hundred dollars and it was to roger harrison sr and let me back up i i know that that was the largest what i don't want to say that that was for sure versus community hospital bed and stone that's a first district appellate case for one hundred eighty two and one bill versus smith fourth district case from one nine hundred sixty three which were both cases where the principle of principles of a corporation were managing and disposing of not one of the prospective receivers in just the baby but of courtroom strozier well that's not true actually you know in our emergency motion we specifically said that the hardware state would be a possible if anything were to consider was it one of the original four for back in spring correct it wasn't one of the original ones made but we went ahead and in that emergency  submitted to the court that possibility partly because they were the bank that held a number of the farm accounts during the period where mr harrison senior son his l l c was managing farm so they were in a way already involved in the case through that but but not really how many banks are there so i'm not entirely sure i think there's probably at least two or three but  defendants to drag this case saturday further they stated us in correspondence this was going to be three to five year litigation and it's going it's looking that way right now it's looking like they were correct and by they've said no we believe that we own one hundred percent property they say it's own to trust and therefore that was their justification for not giving us profits during the period when they were managing so you know  and i don't know the outcome of that would be but we are trying to push the partition part of it at least a conclusion again they've read for attorneys in this case there have been periods where we've had months and a way to try to get a new attorney in the case we have tried to  recognize our ownership interest and give us that would accountings and you know give us our right to the profits we believe we're rightfully entitled to that's going to trump you know whether you know they can save a dollar here or there or whether maybe a while harrison his farm a company can do a slightly better job managing the farm we just want to be assured that the proceeds are being safeguarded and that we're going to have an opportunity to affidavit saying here's the deposits here's what happened on the twenty twelve kroft three hundred some thousand dollars was marketed from the crop only thing that was paid out of that money was the most true county taxes which the judge said and said i reserve all issues of title accounting and everything else so what their order really is is a great question but they really if you just disconnect it five years and see here is not a party in this case if the person i mean no disrespect to his city behind you that person cannot be a party that is that's obvious and the plaintiffs whose job it is having sued him and have you suggest is that the record to to substitute a personal representative had not done filed by the plaintiffs and i quote the plaintiffs are better off having a farm manager that will protect their interest in the net proceeds from the farm operation that is the  misconduct to pay a lawyer fees when you're entitle to half the money that's the only argument they have in supporter for sci fi that mr harrison sr when he was alive a lawyers  portion of the money when the date of your us mr runyon power was nov fifteenth of twenty eleven when they filed a motion to get past the the proceeds of the farm distributed to them of suicide tape to freeze everything their motion even asked to freeze mr harrison's portion of the money but he so mr harrison was accused of violating that order later by pain legal fees a director officer of a corporation the director also doesn't own the corporation the assets half yes it's open on to the director office mr harrison was someone who would who counsel could see that have been managing this firm for mr harrison senior head under the partnership agreement that previous existence which was terminated by this difference client under that partnership agreement mr harrison sr had been the managing general or so it was all t