§ 64.034.Investments, Loans, and Contributions of Funds

Two regimes for idle money, and the difference between them is instructive.

The general rule is restrictive: a receiver may invest for interest any funds that he holds only on an order of the court to which all parties consent.

Both conditions are required. A court order, and the consent of all parties — so any single party can prevent the investment.

The caution reflects what a receivership is. The money belongs to whoever eventually prevails, the parties disagree about who that is, and investment carries risk even when it is prudent.

A unanimity requirement is a high bar in contested litigation, and the practical effect is that receivership funds usually sit idle.

Subsection (b) treats the missing person receivership entirely differently. Where the receiver holds money in excess of the amount needed for current necessities and expenses, the receiver may on order of the court invest, lend, or contribute all or part of the excess in the manner the Estates Code provides for guardians.

No party consent is required, and the powers are wider — lending and contributing as well as investing.

The reason is that there are no adverse parties. A missing person’s estate is being preserved for that person, not divided among claimants, so the question is prudent management rather than fair allocation.

Borrowing the guardianship rules is the right move, since those rules were written for exactly this problem — managing another’s property for their benefit over an extended period.

The receiver must report all such transactions in the manner required of guardians, which imports the accounting as well as the powers.