In litigation involving Hills and Jackson, equal partners in a general partnership, Hills sought judicial dissolution of the partnership and appointment of a receiver to wind up the partnership. Jackson opposed the appointment of a receiver. The trial court found that Hills and Jackson had opposing interests and that as equal partners they were essentially deadlocked. Thus, the trial court granted Hills’ application for appointment of a receiver. Jackson timely appealed.
On appeal, Jackson argued that the trial court erred in appointing a receiver because Hills had failed to show that the receiver was needed to prevent irreparable harm to the parties or that an adequate legal remedy did not exist. The Court of Appeals disagreed based on the plain meaning of Arizona’s receivership statute, A.R.S. § 12-1241. Section 12-1241 states that “[t]he superior court or a judge thereof may appoint a receiver to protect and preserve the property or the rights of parties therein, even if the action includes no other claim for relief.” The Court noted that the legislature amended this statute in 1993 to remove language stating that a receiver could only be appointed “when no other adequate remedy is given by law.” By removing this language, the legislature made clear that lack of a remedy at law was no longer a requirement for the equitable remedy of a receiver.
Judge Snow authored the opinion; Presiding Judge Hall and Judge Portley joined.