Commonwealth v. Tolleson

321 A.2d 664, 14 Pa. Commw. 72, 1974 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 800
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJune 19, 1974
DocketNo. 207 C.D. 1973
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 321 A.2d 664 (Commonwealth v. Tolleson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Commonwealth v. Tolleson, 321 A.2d 664, 14 Pa. Commw. 72, 1974 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 800 (Pa. Ct. App. 1974).

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Kramer,

This matter comes within the original jurisdiction of this Court. It was commenced by the filing of a complaint in equity on February 23, 1973 by the Common[75]*75wealth of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth) acting by its Attorney General, seeking injunctive relief under Section 4 of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, Act of December 17, 1968, P. L. 1224, 73 P.S. §201-4 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The named defendants in the action were James Tolleson and Rodney Tolleson (hereinafter referred to collectively as Tollesons and individually by their given and surnames). The complaint alleged that the Tollesons were the owners, operators, agents, officers, or representatives of at least ten corporations or organizations through which the Tollesons were allegedly violating the Act. Arguments were held on the Commonwealth’s motion for a special injunction on February 23, 1973, before this writer sitting as chancellor, and the Court on that same date issued a special injunction prohibiting the Tollesons from “conducting any solicitations, promotional activities, sales of services, or any of the activities alleged to be carried on in the allegations of the Complaint filed herein in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” As stated in that order, after argument by counsel for the Commonwealth and the Tollesons, the special injunction was issued on the basis that it appeared the Tollesons “may be attempting to circumvent prior orders of courts through the establishment of various corporations, companies or organizations” and “that immediate and irreparable injury will be sustained by the public before notice and formal hearing may be held to determine whether a Preliminary Injunction will issue.” This special injunction was issued under the provisions of Pa. R. C. P. No. 1531. A hearing was set for February 26, 1973. By virtue of a joint petition filed by the parties, the Court continued the hearing and the efficacy of the special injunction to March 1, 1973. On March 1, 1973, the parties again jointly requested a continuance for the purpose of providing an opportunity for conference on possible settle[76]*76ment, and the Court, by order of that date, granted the joint request. On March 14, 1973, the parties presented to the Court a stipulation seeking this Court’s approval of a proposed order consented to by the parties. On March 15,1973, this Court signed a consent order which generally provided that the Tollesons would refrain from certain enumerated acts in connection with their various businesses and would perform certain enumerated acts in carrying out said businesses. The effect of this consent order was to supersede the prior special injunction. For all practical purposes, the consent order was a preliminary injunction order. Hearings commenced on May 16,1973 and after several continuances, one of which was to permit the Tollesons to prepare their defense at the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s case, the hearings were concluded late in the fall of 1973. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law have been filed by both parties and the matters is now ripe for final determination.

As will be seen from the findings of fact, this is a very complicated case, made even more complicated by additional pleadings filed by the Commonwealth via petitions for civil penalties for alleged violations of the consent order. As a guide to the reader, it will be helpful to note at this point that petitions for civil penalties were filed on March 19, 1973; March 21, 1973; April 13, 1973; and July 19, 1973. At the request of and under agreement of the parties, the Court permitted testimony and evidence to be entered during the course of these hearings as a consolidated matter. The petition for civil penalties dated July 19, 1973 was heard specifically at hearings commencing on October 29, 1973; but with that exception, all the other civil penalties were included in the record as a consolidated matter. As if that were not enough, the matter was further complicated by the filing of a petition for civil penalties on April 6, 1973 in a different case docketed at No. 1106 [77]*77Commonwealth Docket 1972, and at the request of the parties, testimony and evidence in that matter were received at the hearings and are included in the consolidated record. An attempt was made to prepare one opinion covering all of these matters, but that was deemed by the writer to be confusing. Therefore, this opinion will be restricted solely to the injunction proceeding and separate opinions will be filed simultaneously herewith on the petitions for civil penalties. It was necessary, however, to include many findings of fact and some discussion in this opinion which will be referred to in the other opinions by reference. It should be noted that there is an additional petition for civil penalties filed by the Commonwealth on September 7, 1973 for which no testimony or evidence has been received and therefore, that petition will not be considered in any of these opinions.

Introduction

In order to help the reader understand this opinion, this introduction will explain who the Tollesons are and what they have done to bring about this lawsuit. James Tolleson is an individual in his early thirties who was born and reared in AJabama. James Tolleson eventually entered into the business of buying, reconditioning and selling used automobiles in the State of Ohio. James Tolleson’s younger brother, Kodney, followed James and entered the same business. In May of 1969, James Tolleson was invited into a business opportunity operated by Glenn W. Turner known as Noscot Interplanetary, Inc. (Noscot). James Tolleson purchased a $5,000 Noscot cosmetics distributorship. He also became a member of Turner’s “Dare To Be Great” organization, and was trained in Turner’s sales and motivation courses, which provided the format for the Tollesons’ future operations. After the State of Ohio moved to enjoin the Noscot marketing program because it was [78]*78alleged to be an illegal multi-level referral sales plan, Koscot changed its marketing system and thereafter for about one year, James Tolleson sold Koscot distributorships until the quota of the distributorships for the state was filled. It was at about this time that the Tollesons’ automobile business was sold and Kodney Tolleson began to work with his brother as a close confidant and as a participant in the various Tolleson enterprises. On July 1, 1969, while the Tollesons were still in Ohio, Koscot had entered into an assurance of voluntary compliance with the Commonwealth covering Koscot’s operations in Pennsylvania. As it developed, because of violations of that agreement, the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County issued a broad injunction against Koscot and all of its representatives and officials operating in Pennsylvania, from which no appeal was taken. Thereafter, in July of 1971, James Tolleson entered the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as the exclusive Koscot agent in Pennsylvania. The record is clear that James Tolleson was aware of the Erie County injunction. The Tollesons embarked upon a scheme to circumvent (or comply with, depending upon your point of view) the Erie County injunction by using salesmen to sell distributorships instead of using the outright referral sales program which had been enjoined. A petition for civil penalties was filed against the Tollesons and an unincorporated unregistered organization called “American Be Independent,” and the Erie County Common Pleas Court issued an order levying civil penalties. That order was appealed to this Court in yet another case at No.

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

Related

Jackson v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2025
Pennsylvania Department of Banking v. NCAS of Delaware, LLC
995 A.2d 422 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2010)
DiLucido v. Terminix International, Inc.
676 A.2d 1237 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1996)
In Re Fricker
115 B.R. 809 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1990)
Marra v. Burgdorf Realtors, Inc.
726 F. Supp. 1000 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1989)
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Tolleson
773 P.2d 490 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1989)
Chapel Hill Spa Health Club, Inc. v. Goodman
368 S.E.2d 60 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1988)
Saler v. Hurvitz (In Re Saler)
84 B.R. 45 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1988)
State Ex Rel. Miller v. American Professional Marketing, Inc.
382 N.W.2d 117 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1986)
Commonwealth ex rel. Zimmerman v. Nickel
26 Pa. D. & C.3d 115 (Mercer County Court of Common Pleas, 1983)
Pennsylvania Ex Rel. Gornish v. Flick (In Re Flick)
5 B.R. 637 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1980)
Commonwealth v. FLICK
382 A.2d 762 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
321 A.2d 664, 14 Pa. Commw. 72, 1974 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-tolleson-pacommwct-1974.