ENEA V. SUPERIOR COURT 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 513 (2005) CASE BRIEF

ENEA V. SUPERIOR COURT

34 Cal.Rptr.3d 513 (2005)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Enea (P) appealed to set aside an order of respondent court summarily adjudicating his cause of action against his former partners, Daniels (Ds), for breaches of fiduciary duties consisting primarily of renting partnership property to themselves at less than its fair market value.

FACTS: Ds and other family members formed a general partnership known as 3-D. The partnership's sole asset was a building that had been converted from a residence into offices. The greater part of the building has been rented since 1981 on a month-by the law practice of William Daniels (D) who is the sole member. The property was rented on similar arrangements to others, including Claudia Daniels (D). The partnership agreement contained no provision that the property '[would] be leased for fair market value.' Ds contend that the trial court ultimately found, that there was no evidence of any agreement to maximize rental profits. In 1993, P, a client of William Daniels (D), purchased a one-third interest in the partnership from the latter's brother, John P. Daniels. P sought to profit from this investment either by sale at some point to a third party, or by Ds' 'just buying [him] out.' P got upset over the rents being charged and questioned D. In 2003, P was `dissociated' from the partnership.' P brought this action 'to determine partner's buyout price and for damages.' P alleged that Ds had occupied the partnership property without a written lease since the formation of the partnership; that they had told P they were paying fair market rent to the partnership; that they had 'exclusive control of the books, records, accounts, and finances of the Partnership to the exclusion of P'; and that plaintiff was informed and believed they had in fact been paying significantly less than fair rental value, 'in breach of their fiduciary duty to P.' D's moved for summary judgment in that they owed no fiduciary duty to P to pay fair market rent. The trial court granted the motion. P appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner