CopyCited 11 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 13 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1298, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16891, 1990 WL 177023
...In this case, CenTrust, acting as the insurer, made premium payments to itself. Premiums paid to an insurance company are not held in trust for the benefit of the insured, but are assets of the insurance company available to satisfy the insurance company's general debts. See Fla.Stat. § 631.154 (Supp.1990); Charles W....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 5220645
...e from American Superior and is payable to Imagine on November 2, 2004." On December 15, 2004, the circuit court entered an order appointing the Department as Receiver for purposes of liquidation. In response to a demand by the Receiver, pursuant to section 631.154, Florida Statutes, [*] Imagine asserted, in February 2005, a right to recover and retain its Non-Renewal Charge of $959,000, to be paid from the trust assets....
...Further, the funds in the trust account are not part of the receivership estate and Imagine is entitled to the Non-Renewal Charge, to be paid from that account. Accordingly, the order on appeal is REVERSED. Further disposition will be consistent with this opinion. VAN NORTWICK, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur. NOTES [*] Section 631.154(1), Florida Statutes (2004), addresses "[f]unds, assets, or other property in the possession of third person" and provides: "If the receiver determines that funds, assets, or property in the possession of another person are rightfully...
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9768, 1992 WL 221534
...Section
631.131(2) provides that an order to liquidate the Florida assets of a foreign insurer requires the department to take possession of and liquidate the insurer's Florida property "with due regard to the rights and powers of the domiciliary receiver." It was pursuant to these statutes and section
631.154 that the department sought to obtain possession of the escrow fund held by Intercontinental Bank. Section
631.154 provides in pertinent part: (1) Any person who holds funds or other property belonging to an entity subject to an order of ......
...While the department's position, based upon language in subsection (4), is initially appealing and would support the trial court's order with respect to the escrowed funds in this case, we are not persuaded that it is consistent with a common sense reading of section 631.154 as a whole....
...in receivership, but possessed by some other person. The *433 remainder of subsection (1) addresses situations where the person in possession of the insurer's property seeks to retain possession because he has some claim to the property of his own. Section
631.154(1)'s reference to the offset provisions of section
631.281 provides an example of just such a situation. See also, Sunset Commercial Bank v. Florida Dept. of Ins.,
509 So.2d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); and Barnett Bank of Jacksonville, N.A. v. State ex rel. Dept. of Ins.,
507 So.2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), construing section
631.281. Subsection (2) of section
631.154 describes what the court must do if the receiver seeks to impose conditions upon the person in possession of the insurer's property pending the court's determination under subsection (3) of the validity of that person's claim....
...insurer. Based upon that language, we simply cannot ascribe to the legislature an intent to change the focus of the entire section which is, undoubtedly, upon property belonging to the insurer but in the possession of another. Our interpretation of section
631.154 is buttressed by numerous sections of the act which, like sections
631.152 and
631.131 discussed above, restrict the receiver's activities to recovering property of the insurer....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 22508377
...by the receiver to collect a debt owed to an insolvent insurance company, because it would be a claim at law. Yet even before the 2002 amendment, the statute provided that the court could resolve a claim such as this in a delinquency proceeding. See § 631.154, Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10147, 2010 WL 2732606
...In contrast, in the case concerning FCT, the bank sought enforcement of its rights as a secured creditor only. In both notices of claim, the bank requested that the trial court establish entitlement to the CDs, although the bank also indicated that its notices were offered as responses to a demand DFS had served under section 631.154, Florida Statutes (2009). The bank filed a notice of hearing in both cases referencing the notice of claim as the matter to be addressed. At about the same time as the bank filed its notices of claim, DFS filed an emergency motion pursuant to section 631.154(2), Florida Statutes (2009), in each case....
...ion with respect to the certificates pending the resolution of the ultimate issues which concern the validity of the encumbrances, and that would be pending a full period of discovery, expert analysis, and a trial on the merits as is contemplated in Section 631.154, Florida Statutes....
...Additionally, a trial court may not determine a litigant's entitlement to an offset where an offset has not been requested. Epic Metals Corp. v. Samari Lake E. Condo. Ass'n., Inc.,
547 So.2d 198, 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In the instant case, DFS invoked the procedure outlined in section
631.154, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) If the receiver determines that funds, assets, or property in the possession of another person are rightfully the property of the estate, the receiver shall deliver to such person a...
...funds is disputed. See id. First, if the receiver so requests, the trial court must hold a preliminary hearing to determine "where and under what conditions the ... funds shall be held" pending the ultimate determination of entitlement to the funds. § 631.154(2). Once the receiver invokes this procedure, the court must hold a "subsequent hearing" to decide the ultimate issue of entitlement. § 631.154(3)....
...Regardless of which legal basis the trial court found for granting the CDs to the bank, however, both of the orders on appeal are defective because they disposed of DFS's claim to the CDs before DFS received the full process to which it was entitled. *835 Under section 631.154(3), DFS was entitled to two hearings before the trial court determined the ultimate issue of entitlement to the CDs....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8785, 1994 WL 496879
ZEHMER, Chief Judge. Appellants, Carlos Lidsky and Carlos Lid-sky, P.A., (Lidsky) appeal the trial court’s non-final “Order on Receiver’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Pursuant to Sec *633 tion
631.154.” 1 The proceedings were instituted by the Florida Department of Insurance to liquidate First Miami Insurance Company (FMIC) under chapter 631, Part I, known as the “Insurers Rehabilitation and Liquidation Act.” §§
631.001-631.399, Fla....
...FMIC’s insureds, and it was ultimately determined by the Department that Lidsky had received $217,325 from the assets of FMIC within the time limits applicable to voidable transfers under the act. In compliance with the procedural requirements of section 631.154, the Department sent a certified letter to Lidsky demanding the return of the funds....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 16040, 2003 WL 22415346
PER CURIAM. The receiver challenges the portion of the final order by which the trial court denied its motion for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 631.154(6), Florida Statutes....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6519
...orporation (“GSW”) as that order was modified by order on the receiver’s motion for rehearing, and an order on the receiver’s motion to tax costs and assess attorney’s fees. This case arises *648 out of a demand by the receiver pursuant to section 631.154, Florida Statutes, for return of funds of the receivership estate, which funds were being held by GSW....
...The receiver also asserts as error the trial court’s failure to award the receiver full reimbursement for the costs of collection of the receivership funds. GSW cross-appeals and asserts that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, under section 631.154, over the dispute between the receiver and GSW, a claimant in the receivership, as to the receiver’s entitlement to payment of funds assigned to its predecessor and the amount of set-off to which GSW was entitled....
...Szalapski wrote a letter to the president of GSW stating that Morgan had been fully paid and that the payment was not justified. In May of 1990, GSW filed proofs of claim in the receivership court stating a claim of unknown amount on both the Peerless and Bloomingdale bonds. On December 2, 1991, in accordance with section 631.154, Florida Statutes, the receiver made a demand on GSW to deliver $185,256 plus accrued interest on the Peerless subcontract and $37,-482.69 plus accrued interest on the Bloomingdale subcontract, which the receiver claimed were funds belonging to the receiver....
...he parent company had no right to a set-off because the corporations were separate legal entities. The trial court entered partial summary judgment in favor of the receiver. The trial court also ordered GSW to report to the court, in accordance with section 631.154(1), Florida Statutes, the value of any property or funds held and what action had been taken by GSW to preserve and protect the property or to preserve the funds pending determination of the dispute between GSW and the receiver....
...In response to the court’s order, GSW reported that the Peerless and Bloomingdale subcontracts had been completed and reported the balance due under the subcontracts. The receiver filed a motion to strike the report and a motion for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to section 631.154(2) on the grounds that the report failed to comply with the court’s order and was statutorily deficient because the report failed to set out the alleged value of property or the amount of funds held and what action had been taken by...
...operly applying an estoppel to validate a transaction made within six months of the insurer’s insolvency 1 ; and (4) failing to order full reimbursement of the receiver’s expenses of collection, including per diem and staff salaries, pursuant to section 631.154(6)(d). On cross-appeal, GSW argues that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to section 631.154 based on this court’s decision in Nova Ins....
...nt on the issue of whether the claims of GSW’s parent corporation could be set-off against funds due and owing from GSW; (2) ordering GSW to deposit $222,738.69 in a court controlled account predicated solely on the receiver’s demand pursuant to section 631.154, Florida Statutes; and (3) awarding the receiver attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 631.154(6)(d)....
...First, the receiver argues on appeal that the trial court erred in awarding GSW prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of 12 percent, rather than the proportionate share of interest actually earned in the money market account on the deposited funds. We reverse the award of statutory prejudgment interest. Although section 631.154(5) exempts the receiver from the provisions of section 57.-111, Florida Statutes, 2 Chapter 631, Part I, is silent concerning the award of prejudgment interest on funds ultimately determined by the receivership court not to be property of the receiver....
...ance bond, GSW failed to meet its burden of showing why the overtime payment should be charged to the receiver. The receiver further argues that the trial court erred in not awarding $42 per diem for meals and $2,183.15 in staff salaries pursuant to section 631.154(6)(d). Pursuant to section 631.154(6)(d), we conclude that the receiver failed to establish that these items were necessary to the recovery of the property or funds....
...This court further reasoned that if Central could not obtain possession of the escrowed funds without litigation in the Circuit Court of Dade County, neither could the department as receiver for Central. GSW argues that under Nova, the receivership court never had subject matter jurisdiction under section 631.154 because the funds were never the liquidated funds of Southeastern in the hands of a third party....
