(Download) "Affiliated Capital Corporation and Billy B. Goldberg v. Robert J. Musemeche and Patricia M. Musemeche" by Supreme Court Of Utah # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Affiliated Capital Corporation and Billy B. Goldberg v. Robert J. Musemeche and Patricia M. Musemeche
- Author : Supreme Court Of Utah
- Release Date : January 24, 1991
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 72 KB
Description
Appellees, Robert J. Musemeche and Patricia M. Musemeche, accepted a $500,000 promissory note from Affiliated Capital Corporation in exchange for their interest in a Houston office building. When Affiliated defaulted in 1986, appellees sued on the note, contending that Affiliateds president, Billy B. Goldberg, defrauded them by causing Affiliated to be merged into a "shell" corporation in 1983, and consequently, Affiliateds assets were denuded and it could not pay on the note. In addition, appellees complained that Goldberg represented to them that cash flow problems prevented Affiliated from paying its February, 1986 installment on the note, although in the same month, Affiliated received some $9.7 million in settlement of a cable television lawsuit. A jury found against appellees theory that Affiliated was "a mere tool or business conduit" of another Goldberg corporation, but answered other special issues in appellees favor, resulting in a judgment of $455,196 plus $45,519 in attorneys fees plus interest against Goldberg and Affiliated, jointly and severally, and $500,000 in punitive damages against Goldberg, individually. In twenty-eight points of error, appellants contend that (1) appellees failed to establish they are the owners and holders of the note, (2) appellees pleadings failed to put appellants on notice of any alleged fraudulent activities at any time other than the 1983 merger, (3) there is no evidence or insufficient evidence to support findings of individual liability or malice against Goldberg, (4) the trial court erred in setting the amount of judgment, (5) proposed explanatory instructions should have been given to the jury, and (6) improper evidence was admitted. We reverse and remand.