Receiverships Under Attack!

The Turnover Receivership is not a harsh or drastic remedy.

You may see case law and arguments from debtor’s counsel saying that the receivership is a harsh, drastic remedy to be avoided.  There are many different kinds of receiverships under Texas law.  The “harsh / drastic” opinions are not on turnover receivership cases.  (Except one from the 14th District where the 14th refers back to its 1979 opinion finding that a receivership under the Texas Securities Act was a harsh / drastic remedy.)  Actually, it keeps getting easier to appoint a receiver under the Turnover Statute.  The legislature struck the most difficult element in 2017, which had required the applicant to show that the defendant’s non-exempt property was not readily leviable by ordinary process.  The “harsh / drastic” cases generally concern pre-judgment receiverships.  Putting a defendant into receivership before the applicant has even won its judgment would be harsh or drastic.  Turnover is about liquidation of assets to satisfy a judgment, which is quite different than the other kinds of receiverships.  

The article Receiverships Under Attack! provides the arguments and authorities you need to combat the Harsh / Drastic Remedy argument, as well as other arguments being made against the turnover receivership.

Updated August 2018