PER CURIAM.
On the single question which is in a posture for review, we find no error in the trial court’s appointment of a receiver to preserve the single asset of a partnership pursuant to a winding up of its affairs. See Key Caisee Corp. v. Seashore Shell Co., 470 So. 2d 792" court="Fla. Dist. Ct. App." date_filed="1985-06-11" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/key-caisee-corp-v-seashore-shell-co-7542226?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7542226">470 So.2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Since the trial court did not authorize the receiver to encumber the property with a $31 million mortgage there is no urgency to decide, on the present state of the record, whether development of the land, which is the sole asset, constitutes a “winding up of [partnership] affairs.” Further, an ultimate disposition of defendant’s timely motion to compel arbitration may render academic the instant exercise.
Affirmed.