This evidence authorized the trial court to find that the appointment of a receiver was justified. See Fulp v. Holt , 284 Ga. 751, 753, 670 S.E.2d 785 (2008) (in case involving former law partners with verbal agreement to split partnership profits evenly, trial court did not abuse discretion in appointing receiver where evidence showed one partner used firm's funds for personal use in months prior to his decision to dissolve firm, borrowed money on firm's line of credit without other partner's permission or disclosing impending dissolution to lender, and took possession of firm records and files); Ga. Rehabilitation Center v. Newnan Hosp. , 283 Ga. 335, 336 (2), 658 S.E.2d 737 (2008) (trial court authorized to appoint receiver where equal owners of business could not agree about its management and financial affairs and no meaningful accounting could be done because parties provided conflicting, incomplete, and inconsistent information to accountants); Lemans Assoc. Ltd. Partnership v. Lemans Apartments , 268 Ga. 396 (2), 489 S.E.2d 831 (1997) (trial court authorized to appoint receiver over apartment complex in which petitioner had secure

Cherokee County v. City of Holly Springs, 284 Ga. 298, 301 (2) ( 667 SE2d 78) (2008).Fulp v. Holt, 284 Ga. 751, 752 ( 670 SE2d 785) (2008).Donchi, Inc. v. Robdol, LLC, 283 Ga. App. 161, 161 ( 640 SE2d 719) (2007).

The trial court did not abuse her discretion by appointing a receiver without finding that Aliera was wasting Unity funds or could become insolvent. See Fulp v. Holt , 284 Ga. 751, 753-754, 670 S.E.2d 785 (2008) (appointment of receiver was not an abuse of discretion when partners had agreed to an equal division of income and expenses, and defendant had previously misappropriated funds from partnership). Finally, Aliera argues that the appointment of a receiver violates a limitation-of-liability clause in the parties’ agreement.

“The grant or refusal of a receivership is a matter addressed to the sound legal discretion of the trial court, the exercise of which will not be interfered with on appeal unless such discretion be manifestly abused.” Fulp v. Holt, 284 Ga. 751, 752, 670 S.E.2d 785 (2008) (citation and punctuation omitted) (in light of evidence that a law firm partner misappropriated firm funds and borrowed money on the firm's line of credit without the other party's permission, a trial court did not abuse its discretion in appointing a receiver). Roumelco argues that the request for a receiver is moot in light of the affidavit attached to their appellate brief suggesting that the property was sold in April 2014. Court of Appeals Rule 24(g) instructs parties not to attach any document or exhibit to an appellate brief, however.