![Can You Collaterally Attack a Receiver’s Appointment?](assets/images-t1724967491/611.jpeg)
Q: I am a receiver for a partnership. I was appointed pursuant to a stipulation between the current partners and a secured creditor. After an extensive investigation, I have sued the former managing partner and her mother to recover fraudulent transfers, for breach of fiduciary duty and for usurping partnership opportunities. They are contending, in defense, that I cannot maintain my lawsuit because my appointment is not valid, because the current partners, having purportedly wrongfully removed the former managing partner, had no right to stipulate to my appointment. Can they attack my appointment in this manner?
A: Orders and judgments can be attacked in two ways. Directly, by writ or appeal, or, sometimes, collaterally. A collateral attack attempts to avoid the effect of an issued order or judgment. Collateral attacks are disfavored because the law wants finality of orders and judgments. This is especially true regarding orders appointing receivers. Orders appointing receivers are directly appealable. Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 904.1(7); Raff. v. Raff, 61 Cal. 2d 514, 518 (1964). To directly appeal, one must be a party or an intervener. Collateral attacks on receivership orders are only permitted if the appointing court lacked jurisdiction to make the appointment, which is rarely the case. Mines v. Superior Court, 216 Cal. 776, 780-81 (1932) (“[T]he court had jurisdiction to appoint a receiver, it is not now possible to argue that it was in error in making the order…the contemplated action of the court below must be tested by the principles governing collateral attack, and it is only where the orders are totally void that collateral attack is permissible.”); Mesnager v, DeLeonis, 140 Cal. 402,404 (1903) (If the court had jurisdiction, collateral attack on an order appointing receiver is improper); see also, Posey v. Fargo, 187 La. 122,131 (1937) (“Whenever the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the necessary parties, its actions in regard to the appointment of a receiver, whether erroneous or not, cannot be questioned in a collateral proceeding… The fact that a receiver is appointed by consent does not render his authority subject to collateral attack in another jurisdiction…”[citations omitted]). These same rules apply in federal court. Pacific Coast Pipe Co. v Conrad City Water Co., 245 F. 846, 848 (9th Cir. 1917) (rejecting an attack on a receiver’s appointment) (“We are discussing the power of the court to act, not the wisdom of its actions. If the state court erred in its findings of fact or conclusions of law, or improvidently exercised its discretion, those are considerations for an appellate court; with them were are not concerned. On the face of the record the court had jurisdiction and in a collateral attack upon its judgment we are not a liberty to inquire further.”).
Therefore, because it appears the court that appointed you had jurisdiction to do so, the defendants cannot collaterally attack your appointment in your lawsuit against them. The prohibition on collateral attacks applies in other contexts. For example, defendants cannot defend against the appointment of an ancillary receiver by challenging the validity or wisdom of the foreign receiver’s appointment, nor can an appointment be attacked by creditors of the entity placed into receivership.
NOTE: Readers are encouraged to cite, copy and use Ask the Receiver articles and information. However, please provide appropriate attribution when you do so. If you copy or use articles in pleading, cite to them (and maybe attach copies, as some courts may not have access to them). Failure to cite articles relied on could lead to the imposition of sanctions. Makhnevich v. Arrowood Indemnity Company, 2024 WL 1020577 *2 ( S.D.N.Y. 2024).
- 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
- Severing Unconscionable Terms in Employment Arbitration Agreements | By: Jared W. Slater
- Can You Collaterally Attack a Receiver’s Appointment?
- Overbroad Employment Arbitration Agreements Will Not Be Enforced in California | By: Jared W. Slater
- LA Al Fresco Deadline Extended | By: Pooja S. Nair
- The Battle for Supremacy: Federal Arbitration Act v. California Arbitration Act | By: Jared W. Slater
- Another Blow to E-Signed Arbitration Agreements in California By: Jared W. Slater
- Employer Reminder: Local Minimum Wage Increases on July 1, 2024 and Current Mileage Rates | By: Kelly O. Scott
- Governor Signs Law Exempting Restaurants From New Hidden Fees Law | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Workplace Violence Prevention Plans and Trainings Must be Implemented by July 1 | By: Jared Slater
- Department of Labor Revises Independent Contractor Test | By: Pooja S. Nair
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- 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