Doret Shops, Inc. v. Siegel (In re Siegel)

207 B.R. 262, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 259, 1997 Bankr. LEXIS 400
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedFebruary 12, 1997
DocketBankruptcy No. 96-02018-8P7; Adv. No. 96-562
StatusPublished

This text of 207 B.R. 262 (Doret Shops, Inc. v. Siegel (In re Siegel)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Doret Shops, Inc. v. Siegel (In re Siegel), 207 B.R. 262, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 259, 1997 Bankr. LEXIS 400 (Fla. 1997).

Opinion

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND MEMORANDUM OPINION

ALEXANDER L. PASKAY, Chief Judge.

THIS IS a Chapter 7 case and the matter under consideration is a challenge to' the dischargeability of a debt owed by Ann Sie-gel (Debtor), the Defendant named in the Complaint filed by the Plaintiff, Doret Shops,. Inc. (Doret Shops). The claim of nondis-chargeability is based on Sections 523(a)(4) and 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

According to Doret Shops, the Debtor was an officer and a director of Doret Shops and as such she owed a fiduciary duty to Doret Shops and she breached this duty. In the alternative, Doret Shops contends that the Debtor converted corporate assets to her own use. Based on the foregoing, Doret Shops contends that it is entitled to a judgment determining that the Debtor is indebted to Doret Shops in the amount of $397,-345.51, which debt should be excepted from the protection of the general bankruptcy discharge.

The facts relevant to the claims under consideration as developed at the final evi-dentiary hearing are as follows. The Plaintiff, Doret Shops, Inc. is a Florida corporation and was the owner of a retail gift shop operated under the fictitious trade name of “Regent Shops” located at the Tyrone Square Shopping Center in St. Petersburg, Florida. At the relevant time, Doret Shops had a merchandise inventory valued in the amount of $250,000.00 wholesale. In addition, it had other miscellaneous assets, furniture and fixtures, valued in the amount of $10,000.00.

The President and sole stockholder of Dor-et Shops was Mr. Jack Siegel (Mr: Siegel), the former husband of the Debtor. The Debtor was also an officer of Doret Shops although she was not a stockholder. All of the outstanding shares were held by Mr. Siegel. Malcom Siegel (Malcom), the son of the couple, was also an officer and possibly a director of Doret Shops. It is without dispute that he was actively involved in the day-to-day operation of the gift shop.

Harmony and cooperation are essential ingredients to the success of a family-owned business and the dissention and fights between family members involved in a business usually produce a very predictable results. In the present instance, Mr. Siegel and the Debtor became embroiled in a bitter dissolution of marriage proceeding which began in 1987 and concluded with the entry of a Final Judgment dissolving the marriage in 1989 (Plaintiffs Exh. 32). The Final Judgment, Paragraph 4 provided that the Debtor shall be awarded one-half of Mr. Siegel’s interest in the stock of Doret Shops d/b/a Regency.

On June 4, 1972, Tyrone Square Inc. leased its premises to Doret Shops in the shopping center known as Tyrone Square Shopping Center in St. Petersburg (Plaintiffs Exh. 1). The lease which was signed by both Mr. and Mrs. Siegel, as President and Secretary respectively, leased the premises for fifteen (15) years commencing 120 days after the date the leasee opened for business. It is without dispute that the Debtor acted as a manager of the store and Malcom was also an employee of the corporation.

When the lease was about to expire, but prior to the closing of the store, there developed constant friction between the Debtor and Mr. Siegel due to the claimed overstocked- status of the inventory. According to Mr. Siegel, this was the result of excessive [264]*264and unnecessary buying of inventory by the Debtor and Malcom. By the end of December of 1987, the store closed and this started a tug-of-war between the parties as to who had access to the store premises. The locks were changed some eight times, either by one or the other parties and the police were called twice. Before Mr. Siegel was able to secure and remove the merchandise from the store, he was involuntarily committed by the Debtor under the Baker Act as incompetent. In addition, Mr. Siegel was involved in a fight with his other son, Bobby, and was arrested and placed in jail for ninety days. According to a newspaper article in the St. Petersburg Times dated December 30, 1987 (Plaintiffs Exh. 15), Mr. Siegel was charged with aggravated battery and aggravated assault with a motor vehicle. The newspaper article further stated that Mr. Siegel attacked his son with a pair of brass knuckles. According to the police, Mr. Siegel was already under a restraining order directing him to keep away from the former marital home.

In 1987 after the store closed, Mr. Siegel suggested to Malcom that he visit Naples, Florida and find- a suitable location to relocate the business. When Malcom reported that his trip was unsuccessful, Mr. Siegel and his son drove to Orlando for the purpose of negotiating a lease in the newly constructed small, up-scale shopping center known as “Church Street Station” (Church Street).

It appears that Mr. Siegel negotiated a lease which was prepared with Church Street Station Associated L.P. On its face, the lease indicated that the parties to the lease were Church Street Station and Doret Shops, Inc. a/k/a Regency (Plaintiffs Exh. 16). However, on the execution page of the document, the tenant is identified as Malian, Inc., a Florida corporation. It is without dispute that Malian, Inc. was the newly formed corporation formed by Malcom and his mother, Ann, the Debtor. It is also without dispute that the lease was signed by Malcom Siegel as President. It is clear from this record that it was Malcom’s idea to form the corporation, although the Debtor was tacitly supporting the step taken by Malcom. Mr. Siegel was completely excluded from the ownership of or any other interest in this corporation.

The primary controversy centers around the disposition of the inventory which was originally at the Tyrone Square Mall. While who removed the inventory is hotly disputed, it is without dispute that Malcom Siegel leased storage space from Ark Self Storage in Largo Florida. This space was lot number C87 and consisted of a ten foot by forty foot space at the monthly charge of $93.45 (Plaintiffs Exh. 14). The owner on the lease is identified only by Siegel, but it was clearly signed by only Malcom Siegel. The Debtor was also named as another party who had access to the storage facility. While the Debtor denied that she even knew the existence of the name of the storage facility, this Court is constrained to reject the testimony and is satisfied that she was fully aware of the location of Ark Storage and that she was also fully aware that the inventory of Doret Shops was stored in the space rented by Malcom. In this connection, it should be noted that there is evidence in this record that the wholesale value of the inventory on hand at Doret Shops just prior to the closing was approximately $250,000.00.

It is uncontradicted that Malcom was observed removing the inventory from the storage and driving it to Orlando, Florida. It is also without serious dispute that the inventory of Doret Shops was placed in the new store at Church Street which was owned and operated by Malian, Inc.

The Debtor contends, unsupported by any corroborating evidence, that the inventory of Doret Shops was removed and stored in the apartment of Mr. Siegel. The Debtor claimed to have visited Mr. Siegel’s apartment when their son Robert died. At that time, the Debtor claims to have seen the inventory at Mr. Siegel’s apartment. This Court is unwilling to accept this testimony as believable, especially in light of the fact that there is fully documented evidence that Mal-com leased storage space from Ark Storage. Moreover, considering the monetary wholesale value $250,000.00, this inventory could not have possibly been placed in Mr. Siegel’s small apartment.

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

Related

Grogan v. Garner
498 U.S. 279 (Supreme Court, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
207 B.R. 262, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 259, 1997 Bankr. LEXIS 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doret-shops-inc-v-siegel-in-re-siegel-flmb-1997.