Court Opinion

ID: 9566595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:41:11.052237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:37.774383
License: Public Domain

WELCH, Justice
(dissenting).
I think the trial court erred, and in law exceeded its authority, in entering the receivership order which apparently has the effect of sequestering or impounding the farm of the parties in receivership for the next eleven years of the continuing minority of the ten year old son of the parties.
The majority opinion affirms that portion of the trial court’s judgment upon cited authorities which I do not think are in point. Those authorities do justify the appointment of a temporary receiver; or a receiver pending trial and determination of a controversy; or to preserve property in status quo pending trial; or to prevent threatened destruction of property pending determination of suit; or pending foreclosure of chattel mortgage; or in the collection of a fixed money judgment between parties to the suit when execution collection could not be made. However, as I construe them, neither of the decisions cited nor the statute, supports a receivership of the permanent character after judgment such as we have here. I therefore respectfully dissent.