Juan Manuel Ortiz v. Saray Ortiz, 13-15-00556-CV

Husband (Juan) and wife (Saray) were litigating divorce and owned several businesses together; Saray moved for emergency appointment of a receiver, alleging Juan was depleting business assets for personal use.
Trial court issued interim orders restraining withdrawals and personal spending and set further hearing on receivership.
Court ordered Juan to reimburse Saray $66,744.36 for personal charges and draws, and conditioned appointment of a receiver on failure to settle by a deadline.
Juan failed to pay; trial court found him in contempt, ordered payment, and appointed a receiver to preserve marital/business assets and to issue payment if Juan did not.
Juan appealed interlocutorily, arguing the receivership was unnecessary and that less harsh remedies were available, and raising other procedural and evidentiary objections.
The court reviewed the appointment for abuse of discretion and considered evidence of substantial personal expenditures and company-to-person transfers supporting need for receivership.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Saray)	Defendant's Argument (Juan)	Held
Whether appointment of receiver was proper	Receiver necessary to preserve marital/business assets given alleged diversion of funds	No evidence receivership was necessary; less harsh remedies available	Court affirmed appointment — no abuse of discretion
Adequacy of evidence supporting receivership	Business records and testimony showed personal charges, transfers, and withdrawals from company funds	Evidence insufficient to show necessity or that corporations were effectively controlled by Juan	Court found substantive, probative evidence supporting receivership
Whether less drastic remedies were tried first	Court first entered injunction-like restraints and ordered reimbursement before appointing receiver	Trial court should have pursued other remedies instead of receivership	Court concluded less harsh remedies were attempted and failed, justifying receivership
Authority to appoint receiver over partly third-party–owned entities	Saray argued corporate control and diversion justified receivership over entities	Juan noted two businesses partly owned by third party and lack of explicit alter-ego findings	Court assumed but found record supported alter-ego-type inference (diversion of funds), so appointment proper

Rusk v. Rusk, 5 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999) (receivership is an extraordinary remedy)
Vannerson v. Vannerson, 857 S.W.2d 659 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993) (trial court has broad power to appoint a receiver to effectuate orders)
In re C.F.M., 360 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (family-code receivership standard and court’s discretion)
Norem v. Norem, 105 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (receivership must be for protection/preservation of marital estate)
Sheikh v. Sheikh, 248 S.W.3d 381 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (standard of review for receivership appointment)
Moyer v. Moyer, 183 S.W.3d 48 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005) (abuse-of-discretion review)
Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (test for abuse of discretion)
Nordstrom v. Nordstrom, 965 S.W.2d 575 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998) (view evidence favorably to trial court when reviewing discretionary acts)
In re S.B.C., 952 S.W.2d 15 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997) (same)
Booth v. Kontomitras, 485 S.W.3d 461 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2016) (alter-ego factors include diversion of company profits for personal use)
Couch Mortg. Co. v. Hughes, 536 S.W.2d 70 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1976) (court’s authority to appoint a receiver over corporate property limited absent alter-ego showing)