Short answer. Once the court, on its own or on either party's motion, determines a receiver is no longer necessary, it must give due notice and a hearing, settle the receiver's accounts, direct delivery of funds and property to the party entitled, discharge the receiver, and allow reasonable compensation, taxed as costs against the defeated party or apportioned as justice requires.

What the law says

Whenever the court, motu proprio or on motion of either party, shall determine that the necessity for a receiver no longer exists, it shall, after due notice to all interested parties and hearing, settle the accounts of the receiver, direct the delivery of the funds and other property in his possession to the person adjudged to be entitled to receive them, and order the discharge of the receiver from further duty as such. The court shall allow the receiver such reasonable compensation as the circumstances of the case warrant, to be taxed as costs against the defeated party, or apportioned, as justice requires.

Rule 59, Section 8 — Termination of receivership; compensation of receiver. Read the full provision →

The court can end a receivership on its own initiative

Rule 59, Section 8 allows the court to determine that the necessity for a receiver no longer exists either motu proprio — on its own initiative — or on motion of either party. This means the receivership does not necessarily continue indefinitely just because no one formally moved to end it; the court itself can raise the issue. A receivership that has already accomplished its purpose, such as preserving property through the pendency of litigation that has since been resolved, is the kind of situation in which the court's own initiative to end it becomes especially relevant.

Notice and hearing before winding down

Before actually terminating the receivership, the section requires due notice to all interested parties and a hearing. Only after that process does the court settle the receiver's accounts, direct delivery of the funds and other property to whoever is adjudged entitled, and formally discharge the receiver from further duty. Requiring notice and a hearing first ensures no interested party is caught off guard by a sudden discharge, and gives everyone a chance to be heard on whether the receiver's accounts are actually in order before the property changes hands.

Compensation is allowed and allocated by the court

The section separately addresses the receiver's pay, directing the court to allow reasonable compensation as the circumstances warrant. That compensation is then taxed as costs against the defeated party, or apportioned among the parties as justice requires — meaning the receiver's payment is not automatically borne by any one party by default. Leaving the amount to what the circumstances warrant, rather than fixing a set rate, lets the court account for the actual scope and difficulty of the receivership when deciding what compensation is reasonable in a given case.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.