Thompson v. Price
59 Cal. Rptr. 174, 1967 Cal. App. LEXIS 1960, 251 Cal.App.2d 182 (1967)
Rule of Law:
A corporate officer, director, and attorney acting in a confidential relationship owes a fiduciary duty to the corporation and its shareholders, requiring the fiduciary to prove that any self-serving transactions, including salaries and fees, were fair and reasonable. Failure to meet this burden or engaging in fraudulent self-dealing may result in forfeiture of compensation and the imposition of a constructive trust to prevent unjust enrichment, though the corporate opportunity doctrine does not automatically preclude all personal investments outside the company's specific line of business or financial capacity.
Facts:
- Thomas Carl Thompson (Thompson), after retiring from the Coca Cola Company, discussed post-retirement financial investment with James F. Price (Price), an attorney and friend.
- In 1955, Thompson and the Prices formed J-A-C Enterprises, with Thompson investing $10,000 for 100 shares and the Prices investing $10,000 for 100 shares, and Thompson and Acme Sash Balance Company each loaning J-A-C $65,000.
- Price assumed responsibility for keeping J-A-C’s books, managing its affairs, acting as its attorney, and advising Thompson, who relied on Price’s management and advice.
- Between 1955 and 1964, Price, Alice Price (his wife), and Louise Cord (his secretary) drew $92,281.88 from J-A-C as salaries and fees, despite Alice Price and Louise Cord performing no services of value, and Thompson receiving no money from J-A-C.
- In 1955, Price secretly obtained an option to purchase 1,100 acres of Sorrento Valley land for $250,000 in his own name, after his client, Helen Alvarez Hill, consulted him about purchasing the same property.
- Price later contracted to purchase the 1,100 acres for $270,000 using J-A-C funds and then fraudulently induced the Hills and Thompson to take over the purchase, making Thompson personally liable for the entire price while only receiving a 25% interest.
- In March 1961, Price induced Thompson, then 71, to transfer 50 shares of J-A-C stock into joint tenancy with the Prices, but Thompson later had the shares reinstated in his name after seeking disinterested legal advice.
- While associated with J-A-C, Price individually invested in other real estate and profited in excess of $120,000.
Procedural Posture:
- C. Bay Robinson, as executor of Thomas Carl Thompson's will, and Ervis L. Thompson, Thompson's widow, filed a complaint in superior court against James F. Price, Alice Price, J-A-C Enterprises, and Louise Cord.
- The plaintiffs sought to quiet title to real estate, declare defendants' J-A-C stock held in constructive trust, recover excessive salaries and fees drawn from J-A-C, and require the Prices to account for profits from other investments.
- Defendants James Price and J-A-C cross-complained against John Hill and Helen Alvarez Hill, seeking a declaration of interests in the land.
- The Hills answered and cross-complained against James Price and J-A-C to quiet title to an undivided interest in the land.
- The superior court (trial court) rendered a judgment that: (1) quieted title to the 42 acres in plaintiffs and the Hills; (2) quieted title to the 1,100 acres in the Hills, J-A-C, and Thompson’s estate; (3) awarded J-A-C $7,500 for excessive salaries and fees; (4) failed to impose a constructive trust on the J-A-C stock held by the Prices; and (5) failed to require Price to account to J-A-C for $120,000 profits from other investments.
- Plaintiffs and defendants Price and J-A-C appealed from this superior court judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does the trial court err by requiring plaintiffs to prove that salaries and fees taken by a corporate officer, director, and attorney from a corporation, with whom they had a confidential relationship, were unreasonable and excessive? 2. Should a constructive trust be imposed on a fiduciary's corporate stock when the fiduciary, through self-serving transactions, has taken no financial risk in the corporation, leaving another party to bear the entire risk? 3. Should a corporate officer, director, and attorney be required to account for profits made in personal real estate transactions entered into while associated with the corporation, under the corporate opportunity doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown (Gerald), P. J.
1. Yes, the trial court erred by requiring plaintiffs to prove the salaries and fees taken were unreasonable and excessive. Price, acting as Thompson’s confidant, a director and officer of J-A-C, and its attorney, owed a fiduciary duty which required him to prove that the drawings he manipulated were fair and reasonable. This shifts the burden of proof to the fiduciary in self-serving transactions (Corp. Code, § 820; Civ. Code, § 2235). Since Alice Price and Louise Cord performed no services of value, J-A-C should recover the full amounts paid to them ($16,800 and $11,180.88, respectively). Price should also not be compensated for services, valuable or not, that were performed fraudulently in his own interest and in violation of his fiduciary duties. J-A-C should recover $92,281.88, reduced by Price’s $10,000 original capital contribution. 2. Yes, a constructive trust should be imposed on the J-A-C stock held by the Prices. Price, through excessive salaries and fees, drew more from J-A-C than he contributed, effectively imposing the total financial risk on Thompson. As J-A-C’s investment was therefore Thompson’s investment, allowing the Prices to retain an interest in J-A-C would result in unjust enrichment. A constructive trust is an appropriate remedy in such circumstances (Mattern v. Canavan; Day v. Greene; Ornbaun v. Main). 3. No, Price should not be required to account for the $120,000 profits made in personal real estate transactions. The corporate opportunity doctrine does not exclude a fiduciary from all business activity in their field. The application of this doctrine depends on the particular facts, including the needs and situation of the corporation, its financial ability, and fair expectation under the circumstances. The evidence here, including Thompson’s unwillingness to invest in raw acreage other than the Sorrento property, J-A-C’s investment capital ratio, and the nature of J-A-C as an investment tool not intended to restrict shareholder personal investment, sufficiently supports the trial court’s finding that Price did not usurp corporate opportunities.
Analysis:
This case is significant for reinforcing the high standard of fiduciary duty owed by corporate officers, directors, and attorneys, particularly when a confidential relationship exists. It firmly establishes that fiduciaries who engage in self-serving transactions bear the burden of proving fairness and reasonableness. The application of a constructive trust demonstrates the court's commitment to equitable remedies to prevent unjust enrichment from a breach of fiduciary duty. While strict on self-dealing, the court also provides important nuance regarding the corporate opportunity doctrine, emphasizing that not all personal investments by a fiduciary constitute a usurped opportunity, depending on the specific facts and corporate context.
