One of the owners turned over possession

Plaintiff owners appealed the decision entered in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which awarded $ 300 on its complaint against defendant club operator, in an action seeking an accounting, and alleging fraud, trespass, and wrongful withholding in a proposed sale of restaurant property. The owners argued that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the finding that the club operator was not an agent of the owner.

One of the owners turned over possession of the club to his estranged wife, the club operator. His intent was to give or quitclaim his complete interests to the club operator, although there was no formal agreement to do so. The club operator entered into a written agreement to purchase the other owner’s stock interest, Los Angeles ADA lawyer but she failed to complete the purchase. This caused the corporation’s stock, which the owners pledged as security along with two notes when the business was purchased, to be foreclosed and sold at auction pursuant to a pledge agreement. The club operator remained in possession of the premises, but failed to meet the club’s financial obligations. The business losses were attributed by the trial judge to the club operator’s ignorance and business ineptitude rather than to fraudulent purpose. Since there was substantial evidence to support the trial judge’s finding that the club operator was a prospective purchaser or vendee in possession and the equitable owner of the corporation and its assets and business until the pledgee foreclosed its lien, withholding subsequent to the foreclosure date was a trespass for which the club operator was liable in damages.

The court affirmed the judgment.

Appellant city sought review of the grant of summary judgment to respondent company from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) in the city’s action to recover business license taxes from the company.

The company produced and sold crude oil and natural gas. The company’s main office was situated in the city’s limits but the company’s manufacturing and production plants were not. The company claimed it was not subject to the city’s business license tax, because Los Angeles, Cal., City Tax Ordinance § 21.166 did not cover the production and sale of goods. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the catch-all provision of § 21.166 was broad enough to include the company’s activities. The court found that the term “selling” as used in § 21.166 was not limited to just businesses that were predominately in sales, but included businesses like the company, that were engaged in fabricating, servicing, and supplying goods for a price. The court ruled that the fact that the company’s products did not enter the city limits was immaterial because the actual sales of their products took place within the city’s limits. The court held that the city’s tax claim for a certain year was barred by the time limitations under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 343.

The court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the company in the city’s action for the recovery of business license taxes.