Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc.

628 So. 2d 113, 1993 La. App. LEXIS 3653, 1993 WL 492593
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedNovember 30, 1993
DocketNo. 92-CA-1223
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 628 So. 2d 113 (Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc., 628 So. 2d 113, 1993 La. App. LEXIS 3653, 1993 WL 492593 (La. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinions

CIACCIO, Judge.

In June of 1981 Theo H. Harvey, Jr. sold all of the outstanding stock of Harvey Press, Inc. to Dixie Graphics, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, for cash and other consideration including a promissory note in the amount of $1,500,000.00 pursuant to a stock purchase agreement.

Shortly thereafter Dixie found itself unable to make the payments due under the note. Dixie requested and Harvey granted eonces-[114]*114sions and extensions of the terms of payment.

When it became evident that Dixie would not be able to pay the installments due under the note, Harvey and Dixie negotiated a buyback agreement whereby Harvey re-acquired all of the outstanding stock of Harvey Press, Inc. pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement dated November 19, 1982, annexed to this opinion as Exhibit A. The transaction was essentially a dation en paiment.

On November 22, 1982, Harvey sold and transferred all of the outstanding stock of Harvey Press, Inc. to Rebsamen Companies, Inc. The Stock Purchase Agreement between Harvey and Rebsamen dated November 22, 1982 contained certain warranties requiring Harvey to indemnify Rebsamen for losses it might sustain as a result of the breach of any warranty given by Harvey or as a result of any undisclosed or contingent liability in excess of $10,000.00.

In July of 1984 Rebsamen notified Harvey that the Internal Revenue Service was examining the tax returns of Dixie and its present and former subsidiaries and was proposing certain adjustments that would create a large tax deficiency against Harvey Press, Inc..

Although Harvey vigorously contested the proposed assessment, in view of the apparent correctness of the claim of the Internal Revenue Service, the tax ease was settled. Harvey Press, Inc. paid a tax deficiency of $91,-542.00 plus interest of $85,682 and Rebsamen called Theo Harvey in warranty for reimbursement of these sums. Harvey paid Reb-samen, received a conventional subrogation, and made demand upon Dixie for reimbursement of the tax assessment, interest and legal and accounting fees of $31,000.00, claiming that Dixie was liable for those amounts under the terms of the November 19, 1982 Stock Purchase Agreement.

Dixie denied liability. Harvey sued on June 15, 1987, the case was tried in November of 1991 and judgment was rendered on January 14,1992 in favor of Theo D. Harvey, Jr. and against Dixie Graphics, Inc. in the amount of $208,233.98. Dixie filed a suspen-sive appeal and Harvey answered the appeal asking for attorney fees and expenses of the trial.

The tax assessment resulted from the action of the Internal Revenue Service disallowing a loss claimed on the tax return of Harvey Press while it was owned by Dixie. Shortly after Dixie had purchased Harvey Press several hundred thousand dollars were withdrawn from Harvey Press and approximately $450,000 was placed in a pooled bank account of several interrelated companies. These funds were never repaid to Harvey Press. When the 1981 tax return was filed for Harvey Press as part of a consolidated return the cash funds that had been taken from Harvey Press and not repaid were claimed as a loss, resulting in a loss carry-back and a claim for refund for prior tax years when Harvey Press had been profitable. When the returns were audited the loss was disallowed because the Internal Revenue Service claimed the deduction was in violation of the income tax laws and regulations, resulting in the tax assessment ultimately paid by Harvey. The correctness of the assessment is not raised as a defense in this litigation.

On appeal Dixie urges that the trial court erred by basing its holding on a warranty not contained in the stock purchase agreement and by misinterpreting the specific warranties contained in the agreement. Dixie further urges that the trial court erred in finding that Dixie had actual knowledge of the undisclosed tax liability.

We define the issues in this appeal to be two-fold:

1) Does the language of the stock purchase agreement make Dixie liable to indemnify Harvey for an undisclosed tax liability;
2) If the agreement is silent or ambiguous regarding a contingent or unknown tax liability, who should bear the risk of loss.

At the outset we find that the trial court erred in excluding plaintiffs claim for relief under the provisions of Section 3E of the contract.

Our Code of Civil Procedure provides for fact pleading and does not require the petition to allege the theory of the case. C.C.P. [115]*115Art. 862 requires the court to grant any relief to which the party is entitled even if such relief was not demanded in the pleadings.

Plaintiffs suit alleged breach of the purchase agreement contract and a claim for indemnification for the loss sustained by Harvey. The allegations of plaintiffs petition were broad enough to allow the introduction of evidence to prove the breach of any warranty or provision of the contract. The entire contract was offered in evidence and the trial judge permitted the introduction of evidence on all facets of the agreement. Although the trial judge apparently believed he was limited to granting relief under the provisions of Section 8D and focused his reasons for judgment on the actual knowledge of the seller, we find additional grounds to affirm and-we are not limited to the reasons given by the trial judge.

The trial court gave the following reasons for judgment:

Harvey repurchased the stock of Harvey Press from Dixie on November 19, 1982. This was accomplished by a Stock Purchase Agreement. After repurchase, Harvey sold the stock to Rebsamen with warranties.
The I.R.S., after an audit of the tax returns, charged Harvey Press with taxes and interest. Mr. Harvey paid to Harvey Press the sum of $177,233.98 including interest and accumulated a bill for professional fees of $31,000.00 in this transaction. Mr. Harvey now sues Dixie under this Stock Purchase Agreement for this sum plus the costs of this litigation.
In the Stock Purchase Agreement, Dixie agreed to hold Mr. Harvey harmless for any breach of warranty on the part of Dixie.
The court finds that Dixie had actual knowledge of the problems with the tax returns which were filed and thereby had actual knowledge that the tax returns were not filed as required by law.

The trial court made a finding of fact that Dixie had actual knowledge that the tax returns were not filed as required by law. Our review of the testimony and exhibits offered in evidence supports this finding.

Plaintiff offered the testimony of Joseph Murphy, C.P.A., an experienced tax practitioner, who stated that the deductions which produced the tax loss on the Harvey Press tax return were clearly in violation of the Internal Revenue Code and should not have been claimed. He further testified that the I.R.S. was correct in disallowing the deductions and in making the assessment.

The trial judge apparently concluded that Dixie knew or should have known that these deductions would result in a later assessment. This conclusion was supported by the chain of events beginning with the tax bill of $135,189.59 sent Harvey Press by the I.R.S. on April 26, 1982, the granting of a power of attorney to Dixie’s C.P.A. to handle this matter with the I.R.S., and the absence of any documentation to prove that this tax matter had been conclusively resolved in Dixie’s favor.

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

Related

State of Louisiana v. v. L. G.
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2011
Levin v. May
887 So. 2d 497 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
628 So. 2d 113, 1993 La. App. LEXIS 3653, 1993 WL 492593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvey-v-dixie-graphics-inc-lactapp-1993.