Can a Receiver Be Appointed for a Not-For-Profit Museum ?
In Scott v. Silverstein, 86 Ill. App. 3d 605, 408 N.E.2d 243, 41 Ill. Dec. 821 (1980), which predated the 1987 amendments to the Act, the State of Illinois appealed from an order denying its motion for a hearing concerning the appointment of a receiver for an Illinois not-for-profit museum. Silverstein, 86 Ill. App. 3d at 606. the State's motion for the appointment of a receiver alleged that the right of the people of the state to the use and enjoyment of the museum was being frustrated by the depletion, waste, and mismanagement of museum art objects and finances. Silverstein, 86 Ill. App. 3d at 608.
After hearing arguments, the trial court denied the State's motion to set a hearing on the appointment of a receiver and denied its motion for the appointment of a receiver. Silverstein, 86 Ill. App. 3d at 608.
This court reversed, holding that "It is our considered opinion that the situation before us as above set forth requires a full evidentiary hearing be held by the trial court on the merits of the issue of appointment of a receiver." Silverstein, 86 Ill. App. 3d at 611.
Defendant asserts that Silverstein stands for the proposition that where the propriety of appointing a receiver involves complex factual considerations, the parties are entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
However, it is clear that in Silverstein this court limited its holding to the "situation before us," which involved a museum and not a mortgage foreclosure proceeding.
Further, this court stated that under such circumstances, the appointment of a receiver is warranted only when there is no other adequate remedy or means of accomplishing the desired result. Silverstein, 86 Ill. App. 3d at 609.
That is clearly not the standard under the Act, where there is a presumption in favor a mortgagee's right to possession of nonresidential property during a mortgage foreclosure proceeding.