Cherry, Bekaert & Holland v. Downs

640 F. Supp. 1096, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21966
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina
DecidedAugust 1, 1986
DocketNo. C-C-85-402-P
StatusPublished

This text of 640 F. Supp. 1096 (Cherry, Bekaert & Holland v. Downs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cherry, Bekaert & Holland v. Downs, 640 F. Supp. 1096, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21966 (W.D.N.C. 1986).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

ROBERT D. POTTER, Chief Judge.

The Plaintiff filed this action on June 19, 1985 seeking a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that the agreement between the parties does not entitle Defendant to the commission which he claims. The Defendant filed an answer and counterclaim for commissions which he claimed for the promotion of the mergers with Severance and Shapr and Conrad, Hoey, East & Co.

The Defendant died on January 10, 1986, and pursuant to Order of this Court filed February 18, 1986, the Executrix of the Estate of the Defendant was substituted as Defendant and Counterclaimant in this action, and will be referred to herein as Defendant.

The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under and by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) and the Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant pursuant to N.C.Gen.Stat. § 75.-4(5)(a) and (b).

This matter came on before the undersigned sitting without a jury at Charlotte, North Carolina on June 25, 1986. The Plaintiff was represented by Gaston H. Gage, Attorney at Law, and the Defendant was represented by Mark W. Merritt, Attorney at Law.

When the case was called, the parties informed the Court that they had Stipulated to the Facts which had been filed on July 14, 1986.

The Plaintiff then called one witness, Mr. Eric C. Pressley a partner with the Plaintiff who testified that beginning July 31, 1984 he had spent 64.0 hours on the Severance and Sharp merger and 91.5 hours, beginning October 15, 1984, on the Conrad, Hoey and East mergers, as shown on Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1. He also identified Plaintiff’s Exhibits 2 and 3.

Mr. Pressley testified that between the time of Defendant’s termination on May 1, 1983 and July 15, 1984, there had been no negotiations between the Plaintiff and Severance & Sharp and that tax problems had prevented the negotiations begun by Downs in 1974 from developing into a merger with the Plaintiff, and that the tax problems with the merger with Severance and Sharp had not been under consideration prior to the time of termination of the agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant.

Pressley also testified that September 3, 1981 was Defendant’s last contact with Conrad, Hoey and East, that Defendant’s assistance in any negotiations and that his only involvement with either Severance or Conrad, Hoey was after May 1, 1983.

Based on the above testimony and the Stipulation of Facts by the parties, the Court enters the following Findings of Fact:

FINDINGS OF FACT

(1) This lawsuit involves a dispute over whether Joseph R. Downs (“Downs”) [1098]*1098is owed commissions by Cherry, Bekaert & Holland (“CB & H”) for his involvement in mergers between CB & H and two other accounting firms. On June 19, 1985, CB & H filed a declaratory judgment action in which it sought a determination that it did not owe commissions to Downs pursuant to a Special Partnership Agreement (the “Agreement”), entered into between the parties on May 1, 1973. On July 31, 1985, Downs filed a counterclaim in which he contends that he is owed commissions pursuant to the Agreement with CB & H for the role he played in promoting the mergers of CB & H with the two other accounting firms.

(2) CB & H is an accounting firm with its principal office in Charlotte, North Carolina. Downs was a Certified Public Accountant who lived and practiced his profession in Marietta, Georgia. In 1973, CB & H was interested in expanding its practice by merging or by acquiring other firms. Downs and CB & H negotiated for an agreement by which Downs would assist CB & H in its expansion by finding and soliciting other firms for CB & H to merge with or acquire. The parties entered into a Special Partnership Agreement on May 1, 1973. A copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. That Agreement’s terms and conditions governed Downs’ promotion of mergers between CB & H and other accounting firms. Downs promoted mergers pursuant to the Agreement by visiting or contacting other accounting firms located in the Southeast. Many of Downs’ visits were “cold calls” to accounting firms that had no prior relationship with Downs or CB & H; others were the result of information that Downs found in trade magazines, during visits to other prospects, or through his personal contacts. Downs would contact a firm to learn about its practice and to ascertain its interest in a merger. If mutual interest in a merger was present, Downs would solicit the prospect by providing information about CB & H and would work to consummate the merger. Downs reported the results of his visits and solicitations directly to the managing partner of CB & H, and he worked with the managing partner in consummating mergers.

(3) Between May 1, 1973, and May 1, 1983, Downs promoted thirty-one mergers and acquisitions between CB & H and other accounting firms located in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. CB & H paid all commissions to which Downs was entitled for his promotion of these mergers pursuant to the Agreement. The Agreement was terminated on May 1, 1983, as provided in paragraph 1 of Article XIV.

(4) The issues in this lawsuit involve Downs’ role in promoting the merger of CB & H with the accounting firms of Severance and Sharp in Knoxville, Tennessee, and Conrad, Hoey, East & Co. in Charlotte, North Carolina. CB & H has not paid commissions to Downs for these two mergers. CB & H informed Downs that it does not owe him commissions for these mergers pursuant to the Special Partnership Agreement under Section III either paragraph 6 or paragraph 8. Section III, paragraph 6 of the Agreement, relates to the consummation period for mergers during which Downs will be entitled to a commission. The two mergers in question were not consummated within five years of the dates of Downs’ first contact with these firms and, as a result, CB & H contends they became prospects of CB & H for which Downs is not entitled to commissions pursuant to paragraph 6. Section III, paragraph 8 relates to the amount of commissions for mergers promoted by Downs which are consummated within two years of the termination of Downs’ relationship with CB & H, and to Downs’ entitlement to a commission of two and one-half percent under cer[1099]*1099tain conditions. During the two-year period provided in paragraph 8, Downs did not “continue to solicit” these firms “by personal visit” nor was he so “requested by the managing partner,” and Downs did not submit a written report of visits to the managing partner within two years of his termination on May 1, 1983. Downs informed CB & H, and contends in this lawsuit, that he is entitled to commissions pursuant to paragraph 8 of the Agreement. Paragraph 8 relates to the conditions under which there will be a payment of a commission of two and one-half percent if the merger is consummated within the second year after the termination of Downs’ relationship with CB & H. Each merger took place within two years of his termination and Downs contends that he is, therefore, entitled to commissions pursuant to paragraph 8.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
640 F. Supp. 1096, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cherry-bekaert-holland-v-downs-ncwd-1986.