What are the purpose of provisional remedies?
show that such departure is “with the intent to
Suggested Answer:
To preserve or protect their rights or interests while the
main action is pending;
1) To secure the judgment;
2) To preserve the status quo; or
3) To preserve the subject matter of the action.
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
What are the kinds of attachments? What are their
distinctions?
Suggested Answer:
1) PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT – one issued at
the commencement of the action or at any
time before entry of judgment as security for
the satisfaction of any judgment that may be
recovered. Here the court takes custody of
the property of the party against whom
attachment is directed.
2) GARNISHMENT – plaintiff seeks to subject
either the property of defendant in the hands
of a third person (garnishee) to his claim or
the money which said third person owes the
defendant. Garnishment does not involve
actual seizure of property which remains in
the hands of the garnishee. It simply
impounds the property in the garnishee’s
possession and maintains the status quo until
the main action is finally decided.
Garnishment proceedings are usually
directed against personal property, tangible
or intangible and whether capable of
manual delivery or not.
3) LEVY ON EXECUTION – writ issued by the court
after judgment by which the property of the
judgment obligor is taken into custody of the
court before the sale of the property on
execution for the satisfaction of a final
judgment. It is the preliminary step to the sale
on execution of the property of the judgment
debtor.
--
Recovery of a specified amount of money or
damages
Suggested Answer:
Under Sec. 1(a) of Rule 57, it is not sufficient, for the
application for a writ of preliminary attachment, to
show that the party against whom the writ is sought
is about to depart from the Philippines. It must also
defraud his creditors”. Under Art 1198 of the Civil
Code, the act is considered an “attempt to
abscond”, which is a ground for the debtor to lose
the right to make use of the period in case the
obligation is one with a period or term, thus, making
the obligation one that is immediately demandable.
A mere allegation that the defendant is a foreigner
without alleging that he intends to depart from the
Philippines to defraud his creditor, is not sufficient for
the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment.
--
X induced his rich friend, Y, to grant him a loan using
a spurious land title as security. Without the security,
Y would not have extended the loan to him. If Y later
learns of the fraud and files an action to recover the
amount loaned to X. What can Y do?
Suggested Answer:
Y may apply for a writ of preliminary attachment. The
fraud committed by X is a fraud in contracting the
obligation or dolo causante.
The fraud must relate to the execution of the
agreement and must have been the reason which
induced the other party into giving consent which he
would not have otherwise given. To constitute a
ground for attachment, fraud should be committed
upon contracting the obligation sued upon. A debt
is fraudulently contracted if at the time of
contracting it the debtor has a preconceived plan
or intention not to pay.
Fraud is a state of mind and need not be proved by
direct evidence but may be inferred from the
circumstances attendant in each case but the
fraudulent intent not to honor the admitted
obligation cannot be inferred from the debtor’s
inability to pay or to comply with the obligations.
--
Y is a stockholder of a local corporation. Y owns 20%
of the shares of the said corporation. Y defaults on
manufacturing contract with Z. Z sues for specific
performance and damages and, on the ground that
Y is fleeing from the country to avoid his creditors,
seeks to attach 20% of a parcel of land that belongs
to the corporation.
Can Z secure such an attachment granting that the
averments of his petition are sufficient? Reasons.
Suggested Answer:
The attachment cannot be obtained. The property
sought to be attached is actually the property of the
corporation which is not the defendant in the case,
The corporation has a personality separate and
distinct from that of its stockholders.
--
Edward filed a complaints against Liza for
accounting of the money received by her as
administratix of Edward’s hacienda. In his complaint,
Edward prayed for preliminary attachment, alleging
that Liza was about to depart from the Philippines.
Attached to the complaint was an affidavit
executed by Marilyn to the effect that Liza told her
that she, Liza, was planning to leave for Singapore in
a few days. If you were the judge, would you grant
the prayer for preliminary attachment? Why?
Suggested Answer:
I would not grant the prayer for preliminary
attachment. The application should show that the
defendant’s departure from the Philippines must be
with the corresponding intent to defraud the
creditors (Sec. 1[a], Rule 57). This fact was not
alleged in the application for the issuance of the writ
of preliminary attachment.
Alternative Answer: Preliminary attachment could
be granted because this would fall under property
embezzled by a person in a fiduciary capacity under
Sec. 1 (b) of Rule 57. Here, intent to defraud need
not be shown because the act of Liza is already
fraudulent.
--
Daniel Chan owns a house & lot at Forbes, Makati,
where his wife and children reside. He is the CEO of
various family corporations where he owns 20% of
the respective capital stocks. These family
corporations owe several banks the total sum of
P2.5B, with Chan as a solidary co-debtor.
After Chan has carefully manipulated the finances
of the family corporations and diverted their funds to
his account in a Swiss bank, he flees from the
Philippines and now resides at 127 Rue, Duphine,
Zurich, Switzerland. The banks concerned now
retains the services of Atty. Ramon Castillo for the
purpose of filing a suit in the Philippines against
Daniel Chan on his obligations as a solidary co-
debtor on the loans of the family corporations. One
of the procedural problems facing Atty. Castillo is the
method of effecting a valid service of summons
upon Daniel Chan, now residing in Switzerland, to
enable the Philippine Courts to acquire jurisdiction
over his person.
Describe the remedies and procedure, and the
supporting grounds thereof that Atty. Castillo should
follow as would enable him to effect a valid service
of summons on Daniel Chan.
Suggested Answer:
Atty. Castillo may file an action against Daniel Chan
for collection of a sum of money with an application
for a writ of preliminary attachment if he has
properties in the Philippines. Since the action is one
in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is required but this jurisdiction cannot be
obtained against one who is no longer a resident of
the Philippines in an action in personam. The writ of
attachment is required in order to convert the action
I personam into an action quasi in rem. In this kind of
action, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
is not required. What is required is jurisdiction over the
res which could be obtained by the attachment.
Summons by publication or other modes of
extraterritorial service of summons would then be
served upon him with leave of court following the
procedure under Sec 15 of Rule 14. (See Sec 1[f],
Rule 57).
--
On June 18, 1989, Mario Reyes executed a
promissory note for P50,000 payable to Norma Alajar
not later than June 18, 1990. Mario Reyes defaulted
in the payment of the promissory note and a
collection suit was filed against him before the RTC
of QC.
After the complaint has been filed, Norma Alajar
discovered that Mario Reyes’ petition for the
issuance of an immigrant visa was approved by the
US Embassy, and that Mario Reyes has been disposinf
of his properties.
What remedy may be availed of by Norma Alajar to
protect her interest? Explain your answer.
Suggested Answer:
Norma Alajar should file an application for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment. The
acts of Mario Reyes are sufficient to vest upon Norma
Alajar a ground for the remedy. The disposal of his
properties clearly an indicates an intent to defraud
his creditor. (Sec 1, Rule 57)
--
Issuance of the order; ex parte issuance or upon
motion with notice and hearing
Suggested Answer:
It may be issued upon notice and hearing. It may be
issued ex parte and even before summons is served
upon the defendant.
However, it may not be enforced and may not be
validly implemented unless preceded by a service of
summons upon the defendant, or simultaneously
accompanied by service of summons, a copy f the
complaint, the application for attachment, the
order of attachment and the attachment bond.
Implementation of the writ without the required
jurisdiction over his person is null and void.
The writ is improperly implemented if it was served
prior to the service of summons.
--
May a writ of preliminary attachment be issued ex
parte? Briefly state the reasons for your answer.
Suggested Answer:
A writ of preliminary attachment may be issued ex
parte although it may be also issued upon notice
and hearing 9Sec. 2, Rule 57). An ex parte issuance
of the writ is intended to preempt any possible
disposition of property by the adverse party to the
detriment of the attaching creditor and, thus, defeat
the very purpose of attachment.
--
In a case for sum of money, the trial court granted ex
parte the prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment, The writ was immediately
implemented by the sheriff. The defendant filed a
motion to discharge the writ on the ground that it
was issued and implemented prior to the service of
summons. Plaintiffs oppose, arguing that under the
Rules of Court, the writ can be applied for and
granted at the commencement of the action or at
any time thereafter. In any event, plaintiff argued
that the summons, which was eventually served,
cured whatever irregularities that might have
attended the enforcement of the writ.
How would you rule on the conflicting contentions of
the parties?
Suggested Answer:
The writ can be applied for at the commencement
of the action. It can be issued ex parte. However, the
enforcement of the writ may not be done and validly
implemented unless preceded by a service of
summons upon the defendant, or simultaneously
accompanied by the service of summons, a copy of
the complaint, the application for attachment bond.
--
On May 2, 1992, Precision, Inc. filed a verified
complaint for recovery of a sum of money against
Summa Inc. The comlaint contained an ex parte
application for a writ of preliminary attachment.
On May 3, 1992, the trial court issued an order
granting the ex parte application and fixing the
attachment bond at P2M.
On May 8, 1992, the attachment bond having been
submitted by Precision Inc., the writ of preliminary
attachment was issued.
On May 9, 1992, summons together with a copy of
the complaint, the writ of preliminary attachment
and a copy of the attachment, was served on
Summa Inc., and pursuant to the writ, the sheriff
attached properties belonging to Summa Inc.
On July 6, 1992, Summa Inc. filed a motion to
discharge the attachment for alleged lack of
jurisdiction to issue the same because, at the time
the order of attachment and the writ of preliminary
attachment were issued, the court had not yet
acquired jurisdiction over the person of Summa Inc.
It argued that a preliminary attachment may not
issue ex parte against a defendant before
acquisition of jurisdiction over the latter’s person by
service of summons or his voluntary submission to the
court’s authority.
Should the motion be granted?
Suggested Answer:
The motion should not be granted, A writ preliminary
attachment may be granted at the
commencement of the action and even before
jurisdiction has been acquire over the person of the
defendant. It may be issued ex parte.
--
Upon failure of X to pay the promissory note for
P100,000 which he executed in favor of Y, the latter
filed the complaint for a sum of money with
application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment alleging therein that X is about to
dispose of his properties in fraud of his creditors.
a) May the court issue the writ immediately
upon filing of the complaint and before
service of summons?
b) If service of summons is indispensable before
the writ is issued, is hearing on the application
necessary?
c) If the writ is issued and X filed a motion quash
the attachment, may the motion be granted
ex parte?
Suggested Answer:
a) The writ may be issued upon the filing of the
complaint and even before the service of
summons upon the defendant
b) A hearing on the application is not necessary.
The application for the writ need not be
heard. It may be issued ex parte. The
issuance of summons is not even
indispensable before the writ is issued.
c) The motion to quash may not be granted ex
parte. A hearing is necessary.
--
X filed a complaint in the RTC against Y for the
recovery of a sum of money. X, at the same time,
also prayed for the issuance of an order of
preliminary attachment against Y, and included in
his affidavit, among others, that Y was disposing of
his properties with intent to defraud X. The court
immediately issued the writ of preliminary
attachment ex parte. Y moved to discharge the
attachment on the ground that it was irregularly
issued, in that Y was not notified at all of such
application or about the time and place of the
hearing thereof, gross violation of the Rules and his
right to due process of law.
As counsel for X, prepare an opposition to Y’s motion
to discharge the attachment.
Suggested Answer:
Y’s motion to discharge the attachment must be
denied. A writ of preliminary attachment may be
issued at the commencement of the action and can
be issued ex parte.
--
Katy filed an action against Tyrone for collection of
the sum of P1 Million in the RTC, with an ex-parte
application for a writ of preliminary attachment.
Upon posting of an attachment bond, the court
granted the application and issued a writ of
preliminary attachment.
Apprehensive that Tyrone might withdraw his savings
deposit with the bank, the sheriff immediately served
a notice of garnishment on the bank to implement
the writ of preliminary attachment. The following day,
the sheriff proceeded to Tyrone's house and served
him the summons, with copies of the complaint
containing the application for writ of preliminary
attachment, Katy's affidavit, order of attachment,
writ of preliminary attachment and attachment
bond.
Within fifteen (15) days from service of the summons,
Tyrone filed a motion to dismiss and to dissolve the
writ of preliminary attachment on the following
grounds:
(i) the court did not acquire jurisdiction over his
person because the writ was served ahead of the
summons; (ii) the writ was improperly implemented;
and (iii) said writ was improvidently issued because
the obligation in question was already fully paid.
Resolve the motion with reasons.
Suggested Answer:
(i) The jurisdiction of the court over the subject
matter and over the person of the defendant was
acquire when he was served with summons. This
jurisdiction was not affected by the fact that the writ
was served with summons. This jurisdiction was not
affected by the fact that the writ was served ahead
of the summons. What was affected was the
enforceability of the writ. Under the Rules of Court,
no levy on attachment pursuant to the writ shall be
enforced unless it is preceded or
contemporaneously accompanied, by service of
summons, together with a copy of the complaint,
the application for attachment, the applicant’s
affidavit and bond, and the order and writ of
attachment, on the defendant within the Philippines.
(ii) The writ was improperly implemented. Serving a
notice of garnishment, particularly before summons
is served, is not proper. It should be a copy of the writ
of attachment that should be served on the
defendant, and a notice that the bank deposits are
attached pursuant to the writ
(iii) The writ was improvidently issued if indeed it can
be shown that the obligation was already fully paid.
The writ is only ancillary to the main action. The
alleged payment of the account cannot, serve as a
ground for resolving the improvident issuance of the
writ, because this matter delves into the merits of the
case, and requires full-blown trial. Payment, however,
serves as a ground for a motion to dismiss.
--
JK’s real property is being attached by the sheriff in
a civil action for damages against LM. JK claims that
he is not a party to the case; that his property is not
involved in said case; and that he is the sole
registered owner of said property. Under the Rules of
Court, what must JK do to prevent the Sheriff from
attaching his property?
Suggested Answer:
If the real property has been attached, the remedy
is to file a third-party claim. The third-party claimant
should make an affidavit of his title to the property
attached, stating the grounds of his title thereto, and
serve such affidavit upon the sheriff while the latter
has possession of the attached property, and a copy
thereof upon the attaching party (Sec. 14, Rule 57).
The third-party claimant may also intervene or file a
separate action to vindicate his claim to the
property involved and secure the necessary reliefs,
such as preliminary injunction, which will not be
considered as interference with a court of
coordinate jurisdiction.
--
Damages for wrongful attachment
Suggested Answer:
Damages may be awarded on account of improper
irregular or excessive attachment.
Even the party who loses in the main case but is able
to establish a right to damages by reason of
improper, irregular or excessive attachment may be
entitled to damages.
An improper, irregular or excessive attachment is not
validated by the fact that the attaching party
prevailed in the main action.
--
May damages be claimed by a party prejudiced by
a wrongful attachment even if the judgment is
adverse to him?
Suggested Answer:
Damages may be claimed even by the losing party
where the attachment caused him damage where
the attachment was improper, irregular or excessive.
An improper, irregular or excessive attachment is not
validated by the fact that the attaching party
prevailed in the main action.
PRELIMINARY INJUCTION
The NAWASA cut off its water service to X’s residence
for the latter’s alleged failure to pay his water bills for
six months. X claims that he had paid all his water bills
as evidenced by receipts. NAWASA claims the
receipts to be fake and so refused to restore its water
service to X’s residence.
As counsel for X, what action will you take and why?
Suggested Answer:
As counsel for X, I will file an action for specific
performance and damages against NAWASA and ,
to restore service, apply for a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction. Here, the action for specific
performance and damages is the main action and
the preliminary mandatory injunction is the
provisional remedy.
--
Main action for injunction distinguished from
preliminary injunction
Suggested Answer:
The former is an independent action. The latter can
only exist as an incident to a principal action.
The main action seeks a judgment embodying a final
injunction. A preliminary injunction seeks to preserve
the status quo until the merits are heard.
--
Requisites for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction or temporary restraining order
Suggested Answer:
1. There must be a verified application
2. The applicant must establish i) the existence
of a clear and unmistakable right that must
be protected; and ii) an urgent and
paramount necessity for the writ to prevent
serious damage.
3. The applicant must post bond, unless
exempted by the court.
4. As to a writ of preliminary injunction, the court
must conduct a hearing
--
In an action for injunction and damages, the plaintiff
applied for a TRO and preliminary injunction. Upon
filing of the complaint, the court issued a TRO and set
the application for preliminary injunction for hearing.
As the 20-day lifetime (Jan 3-23) of the TRO was
about to expire, the court issued an order dated
January 21, 1993 extending the effectivity of the TRO
for another 20 days. (Jan 24, 1992 to Feb 13, 1993)
On March 5. 1993, the court, after hearing, denied
the application for preliminary injunction.
Supposing that on January 28, 1993, the defendant
committed an act in violation of the TRO, is he guilty
of indirect contempt? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
The defendant is not guilty of indirect contempt
because on January 28, 1993, there was no TRO that
could be legally violated. The court (which under the
facts is impliedly an RTC because injunction is
incapable of pecuniary estimation) has no authority
to extend the TRO for another 2- days. The extension
was null and void. Sec 5 of Rule 38 is explicit “… The
effectivity of a TRO is not extendible without need of
any judicial declaration to that effect and no court
shall authority to extend or renew the same on the
same ground for which it was issued.
--
a) What is a temporary restraining order?
b) How does it differ from a writ of preliminary
injunction?
Suggested Answer:
a) A TRO is an order to maintain the status quo
between or among the parties until the
determination of the prayer for a writ of
preliminary injunction
b) A writ of preliminary injunction cannot be
granted without notice and hearing. A TRO
may be granted ex parte if it shall appear
from facts shown by affidavits or by the
verified application that great or irreparable
injury would result to the applicant before the
matter can be heard on notice. The court in
which the application for preliminary
injunction was made, may issue a TRO ex
parte for a period not exceeding 20 days
from service on the party sought to be
enjoined.
--
An application for a writ of preliminary injunction with
a prayer for a temporary restraining order is included
in a complaint and filed in a multi-sala RTC consisting
of Branches 1,2,3 and 4. Being urgent in nature, the
Executive Judge, who was sitting in Branch 1, upon
the filing of the aforesaid application immediately
raffled the case in the presence of the judges of
Branches 2,3 and 4. The case was raffled to Branch 4
and judge thereof immediately issued a temporary
restraining order. Is the temporary restraining order
valid? Why?
Suggested Answer:
No. It is only the Executive Judge who can issue
immediately a temporary restraining order effective
only for seventy-two (72) hours from issuance. No
other Judge has the right or power to issue a
temporary restraining order ex parte. The Judge to
whom the case is assigned will then conduct a
summary hearing to determine whether the
temporary restraining order shall be extended, but in
no case beyond 20 days, including the original 72-
hour period.
Alternative Answer: The temporary restraining order
is not valid because the question does not state that
the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant
will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury.
--
May a writ of preliminary injunction be issued ex-
parte? Why?
Suggested Answer:
No, a writ of preliminary injunction may not be issued
ex parte. As provided in the Rules, no preliminary
injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior
notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined.
The reason is that a preliminary injunction may cause
grave and irreparable injury to the party enjoined.
--
What is the duration of a TRO issued by the (i) RTC (ii)
CA (iii) Supreme Court?
Suggested Answer:
(i) RTC- 20 days
(ii) CA- 60 daysi
(iii) Supreme Court- until further orders
--
A filed with the MTC of Manila an action for specific
performance against B, a resident of Quezon City, to
compel the latter to execute a deed of conveyance
covering a parcel of land situated in Quezon City
having an assessed value of p19,000.00. B received
the summons and a copy of the Complaint on 02
January 2003. On 10 January 2003, B filed a Motion
to Dismiss the Complaint on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction contending that the subject matter of the
suit was incapable of pecuniary estimation. The
court denied the motion. In due time, B filed with the
RTC a Petition for Certiorari praying that the said
Order be set aside because the MTC had no
jurisdiction over the case. 6% On 13 February 2003, A
filed with the MTC a motion to declare B in default.
The motion was opposed by B on the ground that his
Petition for Certiorari was still pending.
(b) Resolve the Motion to Declare the
Defendant in Default.
Suggested Answer:
(a) The motion to declare B in default should be
granted. B failed to file his answer within the
period prescribed by the Rules. The filing of a
petition for certiorari did not have the effect
of suspending the proceedings in the case
and the running of the reglementary period.
B should have obtained a writ of preliminary
injunction or a TRO from the RTC when he
filed the petition for certiorari.
--
A, a grocery owner, sued B before the RTC for the
payment of some merchandise. When the sheriff
failed to effect service of summons on B at Moring,
Rizal, the address stated in the complaint, the Court
ordered the publication of the summons and a copy
of the complaint in a newspaper of general
circulation in Rizal.
As B was actually no longer residing in Rizal and
consequently did not become aware of the
collection suit against him, he failed to file his answer
in court. He was, therefore, declared in default and
a judgment was, in due time, rendered against him.
One year after the date of judgment, a levy on
execution was made on B’s properties.
(a) xxx
(b) What remedies, including provisional ones, if
any, would be available to B and to what
forum should he go for relief? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
(a) xxx
(b) An action for an annulment of the judgment
should be filed with the CA, the action being
one rendered without jurisdiction over the
person of B. Summons by publication is not
proper unless it be clearly established that
the whereabouts of the defendant is
unknown. To enjoin the execution sale, the
action for annulment must be coupled with
a prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction or a TRO.
--
A default judgment was rendered by the RTC
ordering D to pay P a sum of money. The judgment
became final, but D filed a petition for relief and
obtained a writ of preliminary injunction staying the
enforcement of the judgment. After hearing, the RTC
dismissed D’s petition, whereupon P immediately
moved for the execution of the judgment in his favor.
Should P’s motion be granted? Why?
Suggested Answer:
P’s motion should be granted. The dismissal of the
petition has the effect of dissolving the writ of
preliminary injunction. There is no more injunction
that will stay the execution of the judgment that has
already become final and executory.
--
What are the exceptions when injunction may lie to
retrain a criminal prosecution?
Suggested Answer:
a) To afford adequate protection to the
constitutional rights of the accused
b) When necessary for the orderly
administration of justice or to avoid
oppression or multiplicity of actions
c) When double jeopardy is clearly apparent
d) Where the charges are manifestly false and
motivated by the lust for vengeance
e) Where there is clearly no prima facie case
against the accused and a motion to quash
on that ground has been denied
RECEIVERSHIP
Appointment of a party or clerk of court as a receiver
Suggested Answer:
The general rule is that either a party to a litigation
should be appointed as a receiver without the
consent of the other because a receiver should be
a person indifferent to the parties and should be
impartial and disinterested.
A receiver is not a representative of any of the
parties but off all of them to the end that their
interests may be equally protected with the least
possible inconvenience and expense.
--
Joaquin filed a complaint against Jose for the
foreclosure of a mortgage of a furniture factory with
a large number of machinery and equipment.
During the pendency of the foreclosure suit, Joaquin
learned from reliable sources that Jose was quietly
and gradually disposing of some of his machinery
and equipment to a businessman friend who was
also engaged in furniture manufacturing such that
from confirmed reports Joaquin gathered, the
machinery and equipment left with Jose were no
longer sufficient to answer for the latter’s mortgage
indebtedness. In the meantime judgment was
rendered by the court in favor of Joaquin but the
same is not yet final. Knowing what Jose has been
doing. If you were Joaquin’s lawyer, what action
would you take to preserve whatever remaining
machinery and equipment are left with Jose? Why?
Suggested Answer:
If I were the lawyer of Joaquin, I would, in the action
for foreclosure, apply for the appointment of a
receiver pending the main action. Under the Rules,
in an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage, the
court may appoint a receiver if it can be shown that
the property mortgaged is in danger of being
wasted, dissipated, or materially injured, and that its
value is probably insufficient to discharge the
mortgage debt. The case a t bar falls squarely under
the applicable provision. Note: Receivership may
also be a main action as implied from Sec. 4 of Rule
39, or a provisional remedy.
--
In a suit for the collection of a sum of money, the
plaintiff applied for the appointment of a receiver of
the defendant’s property to assure the payment of
the obligation. Should the court grant the
application?
Suggested Answer:
The court should deny the application. Receivership
is not available in a mere suit for collection of a sum
of money for the purpose of assuring the collection
of the debt. It is available when the property or fund,
that is the subject of the litigation, is in danger of
being lost, removed or materially injured which is not
so in the case at bar.
--
What are the general powers of a receiver?
Suggested Answer:
1. To bring and defend actions in his own name
in his capacity as receiver
2. To take and keep possession of the property
subject of the controversy
3. To receive rents
4. To collect debts due to himself as a receiver
or to the fund, property, estate, person, or
corporation of which he is the receiver
5. To compound for and compromise the same
6. To make transfers
7. To pay outstanding debts
8. To divide the money and property that shall
remain among the persons legally entitled to
receive the same and;
9. Generally, to do such acts representing the
property as the court may authorize
--
Investment of funds by receiver
Suggested Answer:
A receiver may not invest funds in his custody without
an order from the court and without the written
consent of all the parties to the action