Articles Posted in Business

Published on:

by

Outside reverse veil piercing differs from traditional veil piercing, which is permitted due to the “‘The alter ego doctrine prevents individuals or other corporations from misusing the corporate laws by the device of a sham corporate entity. Traditional veil-piercing permits a party to pierce the corporate or limited liability company (LLC) veil so that an individual shareholder [or LLC member] may be held personally liable for claims against the corporation [or LLC However reverse veil piercing, rather than seeking to hold an individual responsible for the acts of an entity, seeks to satisfy the debt of an individual through the assets of an entity of which the individual is an insider. Outside reverse veil piercing arises when the request for piercing comes from a third party outside the targeted business entity. In a recent decision out of SLO County, where the wrongdoer was the owner of an LLC that owned land in Cambria. The trial court amended a judgment against the wrongdoer to reverse veil pierce and add the LLC. Sacramento-reverse-veil-piercing-attorney

The trial court’s adding the nonparty alter ego to the judgment was an equitable procedure based on the theory that the court is not amending the judgment to add a new defendant but is merely inserting the correct name of the real defendant.

The wrongdoer appealed, arguing that a charging order under Corporations Code section 17705.03 provides the sole remedy available, but the courts state otherwise. [T]he key is whether the ends of justice require disregarding the separate nature of the LLC under the circumstances. In making that determination, the trial court should, at minimum, evaluate the same factors as are employed in a traditional veil piercing case, as well as whether the plaintiff has any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. Outside reverse piercing is permissible in the context of a limited liability company because, unlike a corporation, a limited liability company does not issue shares on which a creditor may levy and creditors do not have sufficient alternative remedies at law.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

If a corporation fails to pay its franchise tax, the “powers, rights and privileges” of the California corporation may be suspended and those of a foreign corporation to do intrastate business in California may be forfeited. (Rev.C. 23301) The corporation cannot sue, defend, or appeal from an adverse decision. Every contract made in California by a corporation when its corporate powers, rights, and privileges are suspended or forfeited are voidable at the option of a party to the contract other than the taxpayer. (Rev.C. 23304.1(a).) However, on payment of the tax and penalties, the powers may be “revived” or restored, and a certificate of revivor issued. Revivor has retroactive effect, so, for example, a corporation may defend itself in a lawsuit filed before the reviver. Recently a property owner wanted to get rid of a Judgment Lien recorded by a suspended corporation. The Corporation was revived, and the owner was stuck with the lien.

Suspended-corporation-attorney-sacramentoIn Longview International, Inc. v. Kyle Stirling et al., A woman was conveyed property in Sam Mateo COunty by her husband as part of a marital settlement. The property was burdened with a judgment lien recorded two day before.

She filed a motion to expunge the lien, much as one would expunge a lis pendens. However, the court first observed that a motion to expunge the judgment lien is not authorized by any statute and may not even be the appropriate vehicle to secure the relief she sought. An abstract of judgment is recorded by the prevailing party after a court has awarded judgment and it attaches to all of the losing party’s ownership interests in real property in the county in which the abstract is recorded. (§ 697.340.) It makes the judgment creditor a secured and, by statute, can be extinguished only by the recording of an acknowledgment of satisfaction of the underlying judgment or by the judgment creditor’s release of the lien. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Charlton (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1070

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Generally, one who is unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution. The law has created this remedy d to restore the aggrieved party to his or her former position by the return of the thing or its equivalent in money. However, if the benefits are conferred on another by unjustified interference in the other’s affairs, the interferer is not entitled to restitution. It must ordinarily appear that the benefits were conferred by mistake, fraud, coercion, or request; otherwise, though there is enrichment, it is not unjust. In a recent decision, a party who was aware of a benefit conferred on a property owner acquired the property in foreclosure but acted surprised when the plaintiff sought restitution.

Sacramento-unjust-enrichment-attorneyIn Professional Tax Appeal v. Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc, the plaintiff (“Tax Appeal”) pursued property tax refunds on behalf of commercial property owners, on a contingency fee basis. If it is successful, it is entitled to a percentage of the property taxes saved. Plaintiff entered a contract with Victory Glen to reduce its taxes property on Victory Blvd in Los Angeles. They were successful, reducing taxes over $140,000, and were owed over $41,000. But Victory Glen went into default and the property was foreclosed.

Defendant obtained title to the property, paid the delinquent taxes, and benefited from the reduced property tax. Before they did that, they investigated the property, were aware of the past due taxes and the obtained records indicating that the tax valuations had been challenged by the property owner.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

California recognizes a cause of action against noncontracting parties who interfere with the performance of a contract. If you and I have a contract, and John Doe (not part of our contract) tells you that I’m a bum and will never be able to perform the contract, and convinces you to terminate or breach our contract, Joe Doe may be liable. Sacramento attorneys see this issue arise where it comes down to whether there was merely competition – aggressive, but not wrongful, tortuous conduct. The elements of a cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations are “(1) the existence of a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third party; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of that contract; (3) the defendant’s intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damage.” In a recent decision the court found that the stranger to the contract could have a financial interest in it but still be stranger enough to be liable for intentional interference.

Sacramento-intentional-interference-attorneyIn Wayne Redfearn v. Trader Joe’s Company, Redfearn owned a food brokerage business. It represented manufacturers of food products to place their goods in Trader Joe’s. When a Trader Joe’s rep met with one of Redfearn’s clients, and falsely accused Redfearn of spreading Rumors that paying bribes to Trader Joe’s employees was the only way to get their product in the stores, and that the client must terminate its relationship with Redfearn or Trader Joe’s would replace them with a different supplier. The clients split with Redfearn, and this interference lawsuit followed.

TJ’s argued that it was not a stranger to Redfearn’s contracts with its clients – performance of those contracts required TJ’s to buy products from these suppliers. TJ’s relied on a Supreme Court decision that the duty not to interfere falls only on interlopers who have “no legitimate in the scope or course of the contract’s performance.” In that case the issue was whether a party could be liable for conspiring with another to interfere in its own contract. (Applied Equipment)

Continue reading
Published on:

by

A settlement agreement resulting in entry of a judgment results in a ‘stipulated’ or ‘consent’ judgment, which is not appealable. However, settlement agreements often include provisions for future enforcement – such as penalties, fines, and injunctive relief. But once a judgment is entered the trial court loses jurisdiction to consider the matter further. One recent decision involved a settlement that misfired on all procedural cylinders – the trial court had no jurisdiction, and the consent judgment (and the trial court’s order after it) could not be appealed because consent judgments are not appealable. I discuss the details of what went wrong, and suggest some possible solutions.

Sacramento-settlement-attorneyIn Joseph Howeth v. Tina Coffelt, the parties were neighbors in adjoining beachfront houses in Oceanside. They shared a common driveway on their property line which provided the only vehicle access to their two properties. They had reciprocal easements providing equal rights. Nonetheless, they could not get along, and argued over parking and access. Eventually this suit was filed by one to enjoin the other from parking. At the mandatory settlement conference they entered a settlement agreement (full language at the end of this post) agreeing to a specified parking regime. They also provided an enforcement procedure. For violation of the agreement there was a $500 fine, enforceable in contempt proceeding. Lastly, the settlement provided that it would be entered as a stipulated judgment.

Of course the problems did not end, and 6 months later one party filed a motion for “entry of interim money judgment.” The trial court denied the motion because it did not have jurisdiction – there had been a final judgment. The party was required to file a new breach of contract action to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. The appellate court then said the trial court ruling was not appealable.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Liquidated damages provisions in California Business and Real Estate contracts are an attempt to establish ahead of time what the damages for breach would be. Rather than have to prove to a judge what the damages are, the parties agree to what they would be. There are specific statutory restrictions for residential real estate contracts, but other agreements are governed by a more general rule that any penalty must bear a proportional relationship to the damages the might actually result from a breach. In addition, they must be reasonable under the circumstances that existed at the time the contract was entered. Any provision by which money or property is forfeited without regard to the actual damages would be an unenforceable penalty. Sacramento real estate and business attorneys see the issue pop up often in settlement agreements that require future performance – the plaintiff wants leverage to force the defendant to perform. In one decision it was clear that the plaintiff went too far, and the court found the leverage to be an unenforceable penalty provision.

Settlement-attorneyIn Greentree Financial Group, Inc. v. Execute Sports, Inc., Greentree Financial had a contract to provide financial advisory services to Execute Sports. Greentree sued because Execute failed to pay $45,000 in fees. Execute claimed prior breach of the contract by Greentree. On the day of trial they filed a notice of settlement.

The Stipulation for Settlement provides that Execute would pay Greentree a total of $20,000, in two installments. If Execute defaulted on either one of its installment payments, Greentree would be entitled to “immediately have Judgment entered against [Execute] for all amounts prayed as set forth in [Greentree]’s Complaint in the above-entitled action, including interest, attorney fees and costs, less any amounts already paid by [Execute]”

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Piercing the corporate veil, (the alter ego doctrine) is a procedure which creditors use when their judgment is against a corporation or LLC which is owned by, or controlled by, a sole shareholder. Usually, the corporation has no assets to collect from, and the goal of the creditor is to go after the shareholder’s personal assets, claiming that the corporation is a sham. In effect, the corporation is the shareholder’s alter ego and the shareholder should not hide behind the corporation. Reverse veil piercing is a newer concept in which a creditor with a judgment against an individual goes after the assets of the corporation which the debtor controls. Sacramento business attorneys seldom see this scenario, as the point of forming an entity (corporation or LLC) is to avoid personal liability in the first place. But in a recent decision, a wealthy developer did some extensive estate planning, probably to shield his assets, and suffered a judgment for personal liability. The court found that reverse piercing could apply.

Sacramento-reverse-veil-piercing-attorneyIn Curci Investments, LLC. v. James P. Baldwin, Baldwin is a wealthy Orange County real estate developer. Baldwin borrowed over $5 million dollars and did not pay it back. After borrowing the money he created eight family trusts for his grandchildren. He formed JPBI LLC, which loaned over $42 million to some partnerships composed of the family trusts. Of course, these loans were not paid back.

Since he didn’t pay the original loan, Curci obtained a judgment against Baldwin personally for $7.2 million. Curci then sought, through reverse veil piercing, to add JBPI LLC to the judgment. This appeal resulted.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

There is a difference between an “Agreement to Agree” and an Agreement to Negotiate the Terms of an Agreement. An agreement to agree is not an enforceable contract, and thus there is no duty to negotiate. In the case of the agreement to negotiate, failure to reach the ultimate agreement alone is not a breach of the agreement to negotiate. Only if the failure is due to one party’s failure to negotiate in good faith is there a breach. That is because California law imposes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in contracts. Parties entering preliminary agreements in expectation of further negotiations and a formal contract should be very careful how they describe that initial agreement. For example, a Letter of Intent regarding purchase of real property may be interpreted as containing a duty to negotiate in good faith, unless the Letter expressly disclaims such as agreement. The Agreement should also include waivers of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and damages, and state that it does not create an obligation to negotiate. A party considering a Letter of Intent in a large real estate transaction may want to consult with an experienced real estate attorney to be sure the Letter describes what their actual intent is.

sacramento-letter-of-intent-attorneyIn one case a letter to the plaintiff from the defendant began: “ It is a pleasure to draft the outline of our future agreement ….” After outlining the terms of the agreement, the letter concluded: “If this is a general understanding of the agreement, I ask that you sign a copy of this letter, so that I might forward it to Corporate Counsel for the drafting of a contract. When we have a draft, we will discuss it and hopefully shall have a completed contract and operating unit in the very near future.” (Beck v. Am Health) The court concluded that it was an agreement to agree, because the language of the letter showed an intention that no binding contract would exist until there was a formal contract.

When parties begin the negotiation process with no obligation to do so, they do not have a duty to negotiate in good faith. It is only if the parties are contractually compelled to negotiate doe the covenant to negotiate in good faith become implied.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

In the ordinary real estate or business sale escrow, the escrow officer owes duties to the parties to only the parties to the escrow, and not to third parties. There are a few exceptions, such as when the parties real estate sale escrow instructions require following a third party’s instructions, such as lender’s instructions for closing a loan. But it is generally difficult to prove that an escrow holder owes a duty to a third party, the breach of which would result in a finding of negligence. Such was the case in a recent decision which resulted from a misguided and tangled effort to avoid the “no assignment” clause in a commercial lease; parties concerned with suck lease provisions should consult with a real estate attorney.

Sacramento-escrow-liability-attorneyIn Alereza v. Chicago Title, the plaintiff Bobby wanted to buy a gas station which was on leased property, which would require assignment of the lease to the buyer. Escrow #1 was opened, but the landlord required a personal guaranty to allow assignment and the plaintiff did not want to do that. The plaintiff formed an LLC and assigned the purchase contract to the LLC, but the landlord still wanted a personal guaranty. Escrow #1 was cancelled.

The parties had a new idea – plaintiff would buy the interest in the seller’s LLC, thus the tenant would not change, and there would be no assignment. They opened escrow #2. The landlord found out, and said he would consider it a breach of the lease. Escrow #2 closed, and the plaintiff was not a party to the escrow. The escrow officer obtained an insurance certificate for the purchased business, but incorrectly got it in the name of the plaintiff’s LLC (created for escrow #1), not the Seller’s LLC. The parties were not speaking at the time, and nobody knew what was happening. The insurer sent a notice of cancellation of the original policy, and the landlord demanded a personal guaranty. It was not given, and there was an eviction action. The plaintiff gave the personal guaranty, and sued the escrow company for negligence. The court found that, as the individual plaintiff Bobby was not a party to the escrow, there was no liability.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

When someone who owes a debt transfers property out of their name in order to prevent the creditor from collecting against that property, the transfer may be set aside under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. A classic move seen by business and real estate attorneys is the transfer of real estate to someone who disappears and cannot be served with a summons and complaint. This does not necessarily end the story, as the fraud is so obvious that the courts will not aid them in their fraud. In a recent decision involving an obviously fraudulent conveyance, the new owner of the property had been in prison and was subsequently deported to Mexico. That was not enough to keep the creditor from undoing the transaction.

Sacramento fraudulent transfer attorneyIn Diana Buchanan v. Ramon Soto, Maria Soto bought a business from Buchanan for over $300 thousand but did not pay for it. The plaintiff was in the process of obtaining a judgment against Maria, when Maria transferred her real estate in Vista, CA to her husband Ramon as his separate property. Plaintiff sued Maria & Ramon to undo the fraudulent conveyance. Of course, Ramon could not be found, because he was deported due to criminal activity, and was somewhere in Mexico. The plaintiff asked Maria where, but Maria did not know where other than rural Mexicali.

The court allowed plaintiff to serve Ramon by publication. A trial was held, and the plaintiff won. Ramon tried to set aside the judgment due to lack of service, but failed. They appealed, claiming that the California court lacked personal jurisdiction because Ramon had not been properly served.

Continue reading