Zeligman v. Juergens, 86CA1883
| Decision Date | 15 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 86CA1883,86CA1883 |
| Citation | 762 P.2d 783 |
| Parties | Henry ZELIGMAN and Charles Hayhurst, Plaintiffs-Appellees. v. Robert L. JUERGENS and Honor F. Juergens, Defendants, and Concerning Central Trust Company of Northeastern Ohio, N.A., Appellant. . IV |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Podoll & Podoll, P.C., Robert C. Podoll, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Charles W. Owens, Denver, for appellant.
Central Trust Company of Northeastern Ohio, N.A. (Central Trust) appeals the trial court's order granting Henry Zeligman reimbursement for certain expenses incurred as receiver for certain real property. We affirm.
Central Trust was secured by first deed of trust and Zeligman and Charles Hayhurst held a second deed of trust on the same property. The owners of the property assigned their interest to a third party. This assignment violated the first deed of trust's "due on sale" clause. No payments on the note secured by the first deed of trust were made after the assignment. Accordingly, Central Trust began foreclosure proceedings by ordering a foreclosure certificate. Zeligman and Hayhurst, however, suggested that they be allowed to cure the monetary default on the first deed of trust, assume the first mortgage, and foreclose on the second deed of trust. Central Trust tentatively agreed to this arrangement in principle and entered into negotiations with Zeligman and Hayhurst.
Zeligman and Hayhurst began foreclosure proceedings, and the court appointed Zeligman as receiver to manage the property during the proceedings. In his role as receiver, Zeligman paid the delinquency to Central Trust from the receivership account, and he continued to make payments to Central Trust as they became due.
Central Trust and Zeligman and Hayhurst, however, did not successfully negotiate an agreement for the assumption of the first deed of trust. As a result, Central Trust filed its own foreclosure proceeding, and Zeligman and Hayhurst withdrew their pending action. Central Trust's receiver was substituted for Zeligman, and the court ordered that Zeligman be reimbursed for expenses incurred. The court found that all of the payments made by the receiver, including those made to Central Trust, were valid expenses, reasonably related to the management, operation, and protection of the property. The court's order provided that Zeligman was to be reimbursed from the future income of the property or from the proceeds of the foreclosure sale, prior to the satisfaction of Central Trust's note.
Central Trust contends that Zeligman exceeded his authority as receiver in paying the deficiency owed to Central Trust. It argues that the receiver was not authorized to expend amounts beyond the income produced by the property, and that he improperly advanced his own money to pay the deficiency owed on the loan. This contention is without merit.
The order of appointment of a receiver is the measure of his power. Hendrie & Bolthoff Manufacturing Co. v. Parry, 37 Colo. 359, 86 P. 113 (1906). In the order appointing Zeligman as receiver, the court specifically empowered him:
"To use rents and receipts from the receivership property and funds advanced by plaintiff [Zeligman and Hayhurst] for the payment of expenses of the receivership and of the receivership property, and to use the excess, if any, over and above that needed for expenses to make principal and interest payments toward any loan which is secured by a lien on the receivership property." (emphasis supplied)
The plain meaning of the court's order is that the receiver, Zeligman, was specifically empowered to advance money to the receivership in order to pay secured loans such as the loan made by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Ebel
...court which appointed him, he is also a fiduciary of the party ultimately determined to have rights in the property. Zeligman v. Juergens, 762 P.2d 783, 785 (Colo. App.1988); see also Application of Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 703 P.2d 1314, 1317 (Colo.App.1985) (receiver does not hold......
-
NationsBank of Georgia v. Conifer Asset Management Ltd.
...interest from accruing when the parties agree that the action can cure the default and forestall foreclosure. See Zeligman v. Juergens, 762 P.2d 783 (Colo.App.1988). A receiver cannot, however, by its acts alone prejudice the rights of, or create an estoppel against, a party. See Temmer v. ......
-
Francis v. Camel Point Ranch, Inc.
...(N.D. Cal. 1985). Courts typically appoint receivers to secure the rights of both parties to an underlying action. Zeligman v. Juergens, 762 P.2d 783, 785 (Colo. App. 1988) ("The receiver's function is to collect the assets, obey the court's order, and in general to maintain and protect the......
-
Eller Industries v. Indian Motorcycle Manufacturing
...to assets of IMMI and to preserve them for all parties in interest. See Order Appointing Receiver, ¶ 2. See also Zeligman v. Juergens, 762 P.2d 783, 785 (Colo.App.1983); Colorado Wool Marketing Ass'n v. Monaghan, 66 F.2d 313, 315 (10th Cir.1933). Sterling, as Receiver, is a fiduciary of thi......
-
Chapter 20 - § 20.16 • LIABILITY FOR LACK OF PRUDENCE
...estate for inadequate consideration. Accounting and trustee fees were included as elements of surcharge remedy. In Zeligman v. Juergens, 762 P.2d 783 (Colo. App. 1988), it was held that a fiduciary accused of breach of duty has the benefit of affirmative defenses such as estoppel. In Beyer ......
-
Chapter 4 - § 4.2 • WHAT IS A RECEIVER?
...responsibilities to all persons having an interest in the property that is the subject of the receivership estate. Zeligman v. Juergens, 762 P.2d 783 (Colo. App. 1988); Four Strong Winds, Inc. v. Lyngholm, 826 P.2d 414, 417 (Colo. App. 1992); K-Partners III, Ltd. v. WLM Hospitality Corp., 8......
-
Amidst the Walking Dead: Judicial and Nonjudicial Approaches for Eradicating Zombie Mortgages
...supra note 70, § 4.33, at 217.101. See, e.g., Four Strong Winds, Inc. v. Lyngholm, 826 P.2d 414 (Colo. App. 1992); Zeligman v. Juergens, 762 P.2d 783 (Colo. App. 1988). 102. See Patrick A. Randolph Jr., The Mortgagee's interest in Rent: Some Policy Considerations and Proposals, 29 Kan. L. R......
-
The Abcds of Equitable Receivership
...could be formed. Or. a receiver over a going concern could decide liquidation is the best course of action [13] Zeligman v. Juergens, 762 P.2d 783, 785 (Colo.App. 1988). [14] McClain v. Saranac Mach Co., 28 P.2d 1009 (Colo. 1934). [15] Clark, supra note 10 at vol. 2, § 641(j) (receiver not ......