QUESTION: The last Ask the Receiver article discussed whether, in federal court, an order approving a receiver’s sale of assets is appealable. While the discussion was interesting, it was not too helpful to me because I am a state court receiver. What is the rule in California state court? Are orders approving a receiver’s sale appealable?
ANSWER: As the prior Ask the Receiver article indicated, in federal court the appealability of orders in a receivership are limited to three types of orders: (1) orders appointing a receiver; (2) orders refusing to windup a receivership; and (3) orders refusing to take steps to accomplish the purposes for winding up a receivership. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(2). The rule in state court is different.
California Code of Civil Procedure § 904.1 lists the type of orders and judgments that are appealable. An order approving the sale of property is not listed. One might assume, therefore, that a sale order is not appealable, but that is incorrect. The case law holds that: “while not expressly appealable, an interlocutory judgment is nevertheless appealable to the extent that it requires as a collateral matter, the immediate payment of money or the performance forthwith of an act. Thus, it has been held that an order approving the sale of assets is final and appealable as a final determination in a special proceeding. (citations omitted).” City of Riverside v. Horspool, 223 Cal. App. 4th 670, 683 (2014); Fish v. Fish, 216 Cal. 14, 16 (1932) (finding that order approving sale of receivership property, to pay the receiver’s fees, was appealable); California etc. Assn. v. Superior Court, 8 Cal. App. 711 (1908) (writ of prohibition to restrain receiver from selling personal property denied because the order approving the sale was appealable).
The City of Riverside case also points out that, although the sale order is appealable, if the appellant does not obtain a stay and post a bond as required by C.C.P. § 917.4, the sale can go forward and, if the sale closes, the appeal is moot. 223 Cal. App. 4th at 685. In the case, the appellant also argued that the court lacked authority to approve the sale free and clear of liens – an issue that has been debated for some time by receivers in California. The court easily dispensed of that argument stating: “A court of equity has the power to order the sale of property free and clear of liens and encumbrances.” Id.
Therefore, in California, an order issued by the Superior Court approving a receiver’s sale is appealable, but if the appellant does not obtain a stay of the order, the sale can go forward and, if the sale closes, the appeal will be moot.
- Senior Partner
Peter A. Davidson is a Senior Partner in the Bankruptcy, Receivership, and Creditors’ Rights Department.
Since 1977 Peter has represented receivers, plaintiffs and defendants in receivership actions in state and federal court ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- Landlord: Look Out and Take Notice | By: Geoffrey M. Gold
- New Cal/OSHA Indoor Heat Standards Require New Prevention Measures and Written Prevention Plan | By: Joanne Warriner
- California Bans All Plastic Bags at Grocery Stores | By: Pooja S. Nair
- FTC’s Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Stopped by Federal Court Ruling | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Can the IRS Obtain a Receiver to Help Collect Taxes Owed? | By: Peter Davidson
- Severing Unconscionable Terms in Employment Arbitration Agreements | By: Jared W. Slater
- Can You Collaterally Attack a Receiver’s Appointment?
- Changes to PAGA Create Opportunities for Employers to Minimize Penalties | By: Tanner Hosfield
- Overbroad Employment Arbitration Agreements Will Not Be Enforced in California | By: Jared W. Slater
- LA Al Fresco Deadline Extended | By: Pooja S. Nair
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014