Henderson v. Manuel

2016 NCBC 88
CourtNorth Carolina Business Court
DecidedNovember 22, 2016
Docket09-CVS-7254
StatusPublished

This text of 2016 NCBC 88 (Henderson v. Manuel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Carolina Business Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Henderson v. Manuel, 2016 NCBC 88 (N.C. Super. Ct. 2016).

Opinion

Henderson v. Manuel, 2016 NCBC 88.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF GUILFORD 09 CVS 7254

TIMOTHY H. HENDERSON, ) CANDACE K. HENDERSON, ) CHARLES T. HENDERSON, AERO ) ACCESSORIES INC., LILLY LAND ) MANAGEMENT, a North Carolina ) General Partnership, L.I.L.L.Y LAND ) MANAGEMENT, LLC and EASTERN ) AERO, LLC, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) VIRGIL LAWRENCE MANUEL, JR., ) CONNIE MANUEL, a/k/a ) “CONSTANCE K. MANUEL,” ) MICHAEL A. JAKIELSKI, CPA, P.A., ) f/k/a MANUEL, JAKIELSKI & ) ASSOCIATES, P.A., ANTILLES ) HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, ) ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT ANTILLES SEAPLANES, LLC, ) GRUMMAN SEAPLANES, LLC, ) WATER FOWL RENTALS, LLC, ) SPRINGWOOD SOD FARM, LLC, ) AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT CO., LLC, ) SPECTRUM INSURANCE ) SERVICES, LLC, SPECTRUM ) FINANCIAL INTERNATIONAL, ) LLC, SPECTRUM INTERNATIONAL ) HOLDINGS, LLC, VITIM, LLC, ) PHILIP E. CARROLL, and CARROLL ) & ASSOCIATES, INC., ) ) Defendants and ) Third-Party Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) BETELGEUSE, LLC, ) ) Third-Party Defendant. ) 1. THIS MATTER is before the Court for the final determination of

damages to be awarded to Plaintiffs Timothy H. Henderson (“Tim Henderson”),

Charles T. Henderson (“Charles Henderson”), and Aero Accessories, Inc. (“Aero”)

pursuant to the measure of damages established by the Court’s summary judgment

orders entered on July 20, 2016. Plaintiffs, having now withdrawn certain claims,

contend that damages can be determined based on uncontested facts and a final

judgment may be entered.

Younce & Moore, LLP, by Larry I. Moore, III, for Plaintiffs’ Tim Henderson, Aero Accessories, Inc., and Eastern Aero, LLC.

Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, by Jeffrey E. Oleynik, and John W. Ormand III, for Plaintiff Charles Henderson.

Holt, Longest, Wall, Blaetz & Moseley, PLLC, by N. Madison Wall, II, for Plaintiffs Lilly Land Management and L.I.L.L.Y. Land Management, LLC.

McLawhorn & Associates, P.A., by Amy Alston Wells, for Defendants Phillip E. Carroll and Carroll & Associates, Inc.

Law Offices of James F. Hopf, PLLC, by James F. Hopf, for Defendants Virgil Lawrence Manuel, Jr., Connie Manuel a/k/a “Constance K. Manuel,” Antilles Holding Company, LLC, Antilles Seaplanes, LLC, Grumman Seaplanes, LLC, Water Fowl Rentals, LLC, Springwood Sod Farm, LLC, Aircraft Equipment Co., LLC, Spectrum Insurance Services, LLC, Spectrum Financial International, LLC, and Spectrum International Holdings, LLC.

Oertel, Koonts, & Oertel, PLLC, by F. Paul Koonts, for Defendants Michael A. Jakielski, CPA, P.A., f/k/a Manuel, Jakielski & Associates, P.A.

Gale, Chief Judge.

2. This Court entered four separate summary judgment orders on behalf

of the various Plaintiffs, on July 20, 2016. Collectively, these orders resolved all

issues as to liability. The Court reserved its determination of damages that should be awarded based on three of Plaintiffs’ causes of action, but established a standard

by which the damages would be measured. Earlier, the Court had referred various

matters to a court appointed Special Master. The Court adopted the Special

Master’s findings stated in his Final Report, which was submitted to the Court on

August 1, 2013.

3. This Order and Final Judgment now addresses the reserved issue as to

the amount of damages to be awarded to Plaintiffs Tim Henderson, Charles

Henderson, and Aero, against Defendant Virgil L. Manuel, Jr. (“Manuel”), as a

proximate result of Manuel’s breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and

unjust enrichment.

4. Finding it could do so based upon uncontested facts, the Court on July

20, 2016, entered its Order and Summary Judgment as to Defendants’

Counterclaims and Third-Party Claims, and with Respect to Certain Specified

Claims of Plaintiffs (the “Subject Order”). Order, Henderson v. Manuel, No. 09-

CVS-7254 (N.C. Super. Ct. July 20, 2016). The Subject Order decreed partial

summary judgment as to liability against Manuel and in favor of Tim Henderson,

Charles Henderson, and Aero with respect to their respective causes of action for

breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment. Order,

Henderson v. Manuel, No. 09-CVS-7254, slip op. at 53 (N.C. Super. Ct. July 20,

2016). The Subject Order specified the measure by which to assess the damages

proximately resulting from those three causes of action. See Order, Henderson v.

Manuel, No. 09-CVS-7254, slip op. at 49-51 (N.C. Super. Ct. July 20, 2016). 5. On August 9, 2016, this Court convened a telephone status conference

to establish the procedure to finalize the determination of damages consistent with

the Subject Order. Prior to the conference, counsel suggested that the

determination might be made based on undisputed findings, if one or more

Plaintiffs could make concessions. During the conference, Plaintiffs’ counsel

affirmed that Plaintiffs would consider a limitation on their damages, if the Court

determined that these damages could be calculated based on the undisputed facts,

without the necessity of further proceedings.

6. More specifically, Plaintiffs Tim Henderson, Charles Henderson, and

Aero contend that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the amount of

damages that should be awarded pursuant to the measure of damages specified in

the first clause of paragraph 163.a.i. of the Subject Order, and such damages may

be determined based on record evidence supporting their contentions.

7. Paragraph 163.a.i. of the Subject Order provides that Plaintiffs’

injuries for Manuel’s breaches of fiduciary duty include the “money paid and in-kind

contributions made by Tim Henderson or Aero to support the Antilles Companies

after Manuel commenced the undisclosed unauthorized withdrawals, net of any

moneys received by Tim Henderson or Aero.” Order, Henderson v. Manuel, No. 09-

CVS-7254, slip op. at 49 (N.C. Super. Ct. July 20, 2016). The amounts contributed

after those withdrawals commenced can be established based on uncontested facts.

8. The Court concludes that uncontested matters of record support the

following findings, which allow a final determination of the amount of damages that should be awarded pursuant to paragraph 163.a.i. of the Subject Order for

contributions made after Manuel commenced the undisclosed unauthorized

withdrawals.

9. It is uncontested that Manuel commenced the undisclosed

unauthorized withdrawals on or before June 13, 2001. (See Final Report Ex. 26, 27

(checks drawn by Manuel on Antilles Holding Company account, payable to account

1010003059, and bank statement bearing Bates # COM-1-000947 provided in

response to subpoena by CommunityOne Bank, successor to First National Bank

and Alamance National Bank, disclosing that account 1010003059 was held by

Manuel’s wife, Defendant Connie K. Manuel).)

10. The amount of those contributions have also been established. The

Special Master found, and the Court adopted his finding, that the total amount of

money paid and in-kind contributions made by Tim Henderson, Aero, or other

Henderson Interests to support the Antilles Companies from 2001–2005, net of any

moneys received, was $3,088,921.00. (Final Report 4.)

11. As specified by the measure of damages established by paragraph

163.a.i. of the Subject Order, the $3,088,921.00 contributed by Tim Henderson and

the Henderson Interests from 2001–2005 should be reduced by the sum of all

contributions made before Manuel commenced the undisclosed unauthorized

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

Related

§ 1-253
North Carolina § 1-253

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2016 NCBC 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-manuel-ncbizct-2016.