Ackel v. Ackel
595 So. 2d 739, 1992 WL 32729 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The transfer of corporate stock, even if intended as a gift, is invalid if it constitutes the donation of a community property asset without the concurrence of both spouses. Furthermore, a stock certificate not executed in accordance with statutory requirements is not considered prima facie evidence of ownership, compelling a court to examine the totality of the circumstances to determine the true owner.
Facts:
- George Ackel, Sr. and his son, George Ackel, Jr., formed GJA, Inc. to operate a drugstore.
- George Sr. contributed all the paid-in capital, valued at $263,319, from the assets of a predecessor business; George Jr. made no financial contributions.
- George Sr. acted as the owner by filing for subchapter S status, claiming corporate losses on his personal tax returns, loaning the corporation hundreds of thousands of dollars, and publicly declaring himself owner.
- George Jr. managed the drugstore and was listed as owner on operational permits and licenses.
- In December 1987, at George Sr.'s direction, a single stock certificate for all 1000 authorized shares was issued in George Jr.'s name.
- This certificate was signed only by George Jr. as president, and not by George Sr., the corporation's secretary-treasurer.
- George Sr. died on April 19, 1988, after which a dispute over corporate ownership arose between George Jr. and his mother, Jeanette Ackel, and brother, Thad Ackel.
- The corporation was a community property asset of George Sr. and his wife, Jeanette Ackel, who did not consent to the transfer of stock to her son.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeanette Ackel, Thad Ackel, and GJA, Inc. filed a Petition for a Writ of Quo Warranto and for Injunctive Relief against George Ackel, Jr. in a Louisiana trial court.
- After a bench trial, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the appellee, George Ackel, Jr., finding him to be the owner of all corporate stock.
- The appellants, Jeanette Ackel et al., appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a son become the legal owner of a corporation when his father, the true owner, arranges for a stock certificate for all shares to be issued in the son's name, if the certificate is improperly executed and the asset is community property transferred without spousal consent?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Cannella
No. The attempted transfer of the corporation to George Ackel, Jr. was invalid. A stock certificate serves as prima facie evidence of ownership only if it is properly executed. The certificate in question was defective because it lacked the required signature of the secretary, George Ackel, Sr., as mandated by Louisiana statute when no corporate bylaws provide otherwise. With the certificate invalidated as prima facie proof, the court must look to the totality of the circumstances, which clearly indicate that George Sr. was the true owner based on his financial contributions and actions. While George Sr. intended to transfer the stock as a gift, this attempted donation failed for two reasons. First, it did not follow the formal requirements for a donation of incorporeal property (a notarial act). Second, and more importantly, the corporation was a community property asset. Under Louisiana Civil Code, the donation of all or substantially all of a community enterprise requires the concurrence of both spouses. Because Jeanette Ackel never consented to this donation, the transfer is a relative nullity. Therefore, the corporation remains an asset of George Sr.'s succession.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the critical intersection of corporate, property, and family law, establishing that formalities of corporate ownership cannot be used to circumvent mandatory provisions of community property law. The decision clarifies that possession of a stock certificate is not conclusive proof of ownership, especially when it is improperly executed. It sets a precedent that courts will look beyond the face of such documents to the underlying substantive law, reinforcing the strong spousal protection in community property states which requires mutual consent for the alienation of significant community assets. Future disputes involving family-owned businesses in community property jurisdictions will be guided by this principle, ensuring that one spouse cannot unilaterally dispose of a major shared asset through a purported corporate transfer.
