Stuparich V.Harbor Furniture Manufacturing, Inc.
83 Cal. App. 4th 1268, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 313, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8058 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Involuntary corporate dissolution under Corporations Code section 1800(b)(5) is a drastic remedy not deemed 'reasonably necessary' to protect minority shareholders' interests when they continue to receive substantial financial benefits, even amidst significant internal hostility and disagreement over business management.
Facts:
- Harbor Furniture Manufacturing, Inc. was a closely held family corporation operating two businesses: a consistently unprofitable furniture manufacturing business and a very profitable mobile-home park.
- Sisters Ann Stuparich and Candi Tuttleton were minority shareholders who were not involved in the day-to-day operations of the corporation.
- Their brother, Malcolm Tuttleton, Jr., served as the CEO, and he, his wife, and his son all drew salaries from the corporation, primarily from the money-losing furniture operation.
- In March 1996, the sisters' father sold his voting stock to Malcolm, Jr., giving him a controlling interest of 51.56% of the voting shares.
- The sisters proposed separating the mobile-home park from the furniture business to protect its profits from the latter's losses, but Malcolm, Jr. rejected the proposal.
- Despite the furniture business's losses, the corporation paid consistent and increasing monthly dividends, with each sister receiving over $800,000 since 1984.
- The relationship between the sisters and their brother deteriorated to a state of extreme hostility, resulting in a physical altercation, after which the sisters stopped attending board meetings.
- Malcolm, Jr. refused the sisters' request that the corporation buy out their shares.
Procedural Posture:
- Ann Stuparich and Candi Tuttleton filed a complaint in a California trial court against Harbor Furniture Manufacturing, Inc. and several individual family members, seeking involuntary dissolution and other forms of relief.
- The parties stipulated to dismiss the individual defendants and all causes of action except for the claim for involuntary dissolution under Corporations Code section 1800(b)(5).
- Harbor Furniture filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining claim.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to raise a triable issue of material fact.
- Judgment was entered in favor of Harbor Furniture, and the plaintiffs, as appellants, filed a timely appeal to the California Court of Appeal.
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 extreme hostility between majority and minority shareholders and disagreement over business strategy make corporate dissolution 'reasonably necessary' under Corporations Code section 1800(b)(5) to protect the minority shareholders' interests, even when they continue to receive substantial dividends?
Opinions:
Majority - Epstein, J.
No. Involuntary dissolution is not reasonably necessary to protect the minority shareholders' rights or interests. The court held that dissolution is a 'drastic remedy' and distinguished this case from precedent like Stumpf v. C.E. Stumpf & Sons, Inc., where the complaining shareholder was completely frozen out financially. Here, the sisters continued to receive substantial and regular dividends, demonstrating that their core financial interests were being protected. The court reasoned that as minority holders of voting stock, the sisters are not entitled to substitute their business judgment for that of the majority shareholder regarding the viability of the furniture operation. While acknowledging the extreme hostility, the court concluded that it did not, by itself, make dissolution 'reasonably necessary' when the shareholders' primary financial interests were still being served.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the high threshold for ordering involuntary dissolution of a closely held corporation under § 1800(b)(5). It establishes that severe internal discord and disagreement over business strategy are insufficient grounds for dissolution if the minority shareholders' fundamental financial interests remain protected, as evidenced by consistent dividend payments. The ruling reinforces the court's reluctance to interfere with corporate governance or override the business judgment of the majority, framing dissolution as a remedy for the protection of core rights, not as a tool to resolve shareholder dissatisfaction or family disputes. This case narrows the application of precedents like Stumpf to situations where minority shareholders are financially oppressed or completely frozen out of any benefit from their investment.
