Golden Distributors, Ltd. v. Garced (In Re Golden Distributors, Ltd.)

134 B.R. 766, 16 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1112, 1991 Bankr. LEXIS 1835, 1991 WL 273844
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York
DecidedDecember 18, 1991
Docket19-22416
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 134 B.R. 766 (Golden Distributors, Ltd. v. Garced (In Re Golden Distributors, Ltd.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Golden Distributors, Ltd. v. Garced (In Re Golden Distributors, Ltd.), 134 B.R. 766, 16 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1112, 1991 Bankr. LEXIS 1835, 1991 WL 273844 (N.Y. 1991).

Opinion

DECISION ON COMPLAINT TO RECOVER PROPERTY OF ESTATE AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL TO THE DEFENDANTS

HOWARD SCHWARTZBERG, Bankruptcy Judge.

Golden Distributors, Ltd. (“Golden”), the debtor in this voluntary Chapter 11 case, has commenced this adversary proceeding to collect $201,769.06 from the defendants for goods sold and delivered. Golden alleges that the defendant Raymond Garced (“Garced”) is personally liable for five checks totaling $107,525.30 which he drew on the account of Liberty Bag and Paper Co., Inc. (“Liberty”) as payment for the goods but thereafter stopped payment. Golden argues that New York’s U.C.C. § 3-403(2) imposes personal liability on a person who signs his own name to a corporate check without indicating that he is signing in a representative capacity. Liberty admits that it, as a corporate entity, owes Golden $151,043.48 asserting that it remitted payments of $49,861.04 to Golden. Golden contends that all payments were credited to the account of American Tobacco and Paper (“American Tobacco”), a trade name that Liberty uses. Garced argues that he is not personally liable as the maker of the checks because it was implicit in the course of conduct established between Golden and himself that liability would only be imposed on the corporation. This course of conduct, Garced argues, constitutes an exception to New York’s U.C.C. § 3-403(2). The defendants’ attorney moved to withdraw as counsel in this case because he has not been in contact with Garced for several weeks despite his efforts to reach him. The court granted this motion at the conclusion of the trial.

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On November 13, 1990, the debtor and its affiliated corporations, filed with this court petitions for reorganizational relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and continued in possession and management of their businesses and properties pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 1107 and *768 1108. The separate cases were consolidated for purposes of administration by an order of this court.

2. Golden is a wholesale distributor of cigarettes, candy, and other sundry products. A principal place of the debtor’s business is located in Port Chester, New York.

3. Liberty is a New York corporation with an office at 748 Liberty Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. Liberty operates at this address a store under the trade name American Tobacco and Paper. Liberty has not filed with the Secretary of State a certificate setting forth the name or designation under which business is conducted as required by New York’s General Business Law § 130(l)(b).

4. Garced is a New York resident and was a shareholder of Liberty during its association with Golden. Garced failed to appear as a witness in this proceeding in violation of a subpoena issued by the clerk of the court. Counsel for Garced denies that Garced is personally liable for the debts of Liberty or American Tobacco.

5. American Tobacco purchased cigarettes and sundry items from Golden on a regular basis pursuant to specific credit terms. Golden maintained an account on its books for American Tobacco.

6. Golden delivered goods to American Tobacco for credit on various occasions in 1990 and afterward sent American Tobacco invoices reflecting the amounts due and owing. Golden asserts that neither Liberty nor American Tobacco paid certain invoices totaling $129,063.76.

7. Because it had not been paying its invoices, in the fall of 1990 Golden required American Tobacco to pay for its shipments with cash or check on delivery. In November 1990, Golden made five deliveries to American Tobacco for which Garced, at the time of each delivery, tendered a check drawn on Liberty’s account. The checks totaled $107,525.30. After Golden filed its bankruptcy petition, Garced stopped payment on the checks causing Golden to incur a service fee of $30.00 for each stopped check. At this point, Liberty’s outstanding account balance with Golden was $236,-769.06.

8. Liberty admits that it owes Golden $151,043.48. Liberty contends that it has already remitted $49,861.04 in cash and checks to Golden in satisfaction of its indebtedness. It alleges that this amount is comprised of three certified checks tendered to Golden, a cash payment received by a Golden employee, and various payments made to a Golden representative. Golden credited all payments to American Tobacco’s account.

9. On November 29, 1990, Garced tendered two certified checks drawn on Liberty’s account in the amounts of $12,814.54 and $5,000.00 to Golden. On December 4, 1990, Garced remitted a certified check drawn on Liberty’s account for $9,378.00 to Golden. These certified checks are numbered 1533, 1534 and 1551, respectively. Defendant’s Exhibit D. The back of each check indicates that it was deposited by Golden in a Citibank account. Golden’s account record reflects each of these payments. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6.

10. The defendants introduced a receipt allegedly signed by Golden’s driver, Franco Solozano (“Solozano”), which states that he accepted $10,000.00 in cash from Liberty on December 3, 1990. However, Solozano testified in this case and denied that he received the money, stating that although his name appears on a receipt, he did not sign it. Solozano’s testimony is corroborated by Golden’s daily manifest sheet, a business record which sets forth the accounts visited on each day. The manifest sheet does not indicate that Liberty, American Tobacco, or Garced were visited by a Golden representative on December 3, 1990.

11. A Driver Collect receipt dated December 14, 1990 indicates that a Golden representative collected $2,325.34 in cash and $2,674.66 in checks from Garced. Golden only credited American Tobacco’s account with $4,831.50 for that date. There is a $168.50 unexplained discrepancy between the receipt and Golden’s records.

12. A Driver Collect receipt dated December 17, 1990 indicates that Garced remitted $4,115.73 in checks and $1,052.77 in *769 cash to a representative of Golden. A receipt dated December 21,1990 shows that a Golden representative collected $2,500.00 in checks from Garced. Golden duly credited American Tobacco’s account with these payments. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6.

13. On or about March 7, 1990, Garced tendered a check drawn on Liberty’s account for $35,000.00 to Golden which Golden posted to American Tobacco's account, thereby reducing the outstanding account balance on Golden’s books to $201,769.06. In its complaint, Golden seeks to recover this amount from Liberty based on Liberty’s failure to pay for goods sold and delivered. Of this $201,769.06, Golden seeks to hold Garced personally liable for $107,-525.30 plus service charges for the five checks which Garced tendered to Golden in November, 1990 and thereafter stopped. Golden argues that Garced is personally liable because he failed to indicate that he was signing the checks as a representative of Liberty.

DISCUSSION

Cl] Liberty is liable for the debts of American Tobacco. Liberty, a duly licensed corporation under New York law, does business under the trade name American Tobacco even though Liberty has not filed a certificate designating the trade name as required by section 130 of New York’s General Business Law. N.Y.Gen.

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

Related

KLG Jewelry LLC v. 706 Madison LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 03137 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Finkel v. Whiffen Electric Co.
Second Circuit, 2009
Finkel v. Romanowicz
577 F.3d 79 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Glover v. Jones
522 F. Supp. 2d 496 (W.D. New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 B.R. 766, 16 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1112, 1991 Bankr. LEXIS 1835, 1991 WL 273844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golden-distributors-ltd-v-garced-in-re-golden-distributors-ltd-nysb-1991.