Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictiontrialtrustdivorce
trialtrustdivorce

Related Cases

Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp., 574 U.S. 405, 135 S.Ct. 897, 190 L.Ed.2d 789, 83 USLW 4082, 2015-1 Trade Cases P 79,025, 90 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1060, 15 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 634, 2015 Daily Journal D.A.R. 847, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 65
View Case »
In re Patterson, 93 Wash.App. 579, 969 P.2d 1106
View Case »
In re Burgess, 955 F.2d 134, Bankr. L. Rep. P 74,443
View Case »
Price v. Gurney, 324 U.S. 100, 65 S.Ct. 513, 89 L.Ed. 776
View Case »
In re Bibo, Inc., 76 F.3d 256, 64 USLW 2527, 35 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 549, 28 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 697, Bankr. L. Rep. P 76,768, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 519, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 795
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

First Southern Properties, Inc. v. Vallone, 523 S.W.2d 92

Facts

The trial court appointed a receiver on April 11, 1973, to manage the community assets of Mr. and Mrs. Darnell while their divorce was pending. The Darnells had purchased real property secured by a deed of trust, and after defaulting on a payment, a substitute trustee conducted a sale of the property. The receiver sought to set aside this sale, arguing that the property was under the court's jurisdiction and could not be sold without authorization.

The trial court appointed a receiver on April 11, 1973, to manage the community assets of Mr. and Mrs. Darnell while their divorce was pending.

Issue

Whether the sale of property in receivership by a substitute trustee was valid despite the property being in custodia legis.

Whether the sale of property in receivership by a substitute trustee was valid despite the property being in custodia legis.

Rule

Property in the possession of a receiver may not be sold by a trustee to satisfy a mortgage or trust deed unless the sale is authorized by the court in which the receivership is pending.

Property in the possession of a receiver may not be sold by a trustee to satisfy a mortgage or trust deed unless the sale is authorized by the court in which the receivership is pending.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that the property was indeed in custodia legis due to the appointment of the receiver. Since the sale was conducted without court authorization, it was deemed void. The court also noted that the receiver's failure to file a lis pendens did not estop him from contesting the sale.

The court applied the rule by determining that the property was indeed in custodia legis due to the appointment of the receiver.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's decision to set aside the trustee's deed, concluding that the sale was void due to the property being in the custody of the law.

The court affirmed the trial court's decision to set aside the trustee's deed, concluding that the sale was void due to the property being in the custody of the law.

Who won?

The receiver prevailed in the case because the court found that the sale of the property was void as it was in custodia legis and could not be sold without court authorization.

The receiver prevailed in the case because the court found that the sale of the property was void as it was in custodia legis and could not be sold without court authorization.

You must be