Court Opinion

ID: 9534350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:38:50.192912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:20.430784
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring.
While I concur in the result reached by the majority, I am compelled to write separately to emphasize the reasons for doing so. Our standard of review regarding the determination of the trial court to appoint a receiver is whether or not that court abused its discretion. Northampton National Bank of Easton v. Piscanio, 475 Pa. 57, 379 A.2d 870 (1977) and Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 396 Pa. 530, 153 A.2d 901 (1959). In Tate v. Philadelphia Transportation Company, 410 Pa. 490, 190 A.2d 316 (1963), we held that a receivership is appropriate when gross mismanagement, fraud or similar circumstances exist. It is clear from reviewing the record that sufficient evidence is present to sustain the conclusions of the Chancellor. Accordingly, I find it unnecessary to create any new reasons for the appointment of a receiver when the record is as clear as the one now before this *614Court. For the foregoing reasons, I find no abuse by the Chancellor in the appointment of a receiver and would therefore reverse the Opinion and Order of the Superior Court and affirm the Chancellor’s decision.