In re Tidal Equipment Co.

623 F. Supp. 933, 57 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1097, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13220
CourtDistrict Court, D. Delaware
DecidedDecember 3, 1985
DocketCiv. A. No. 81-75-JLL
StatusPublished

This text of 623 F. Supp. 933 (In re Tidal Equipment Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Tidal Equipment Co., 623 F. Supp. 933, 57 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1097, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13220 (D. Del. 1985).

Opinion

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

LATCHUM, Senior District Judge.

This Court sitting in equity held an evidentiary hearing on October 25, 1985, after due notice to all parties in interest, in order to determine who owned the shares of stock of Tidal Equipment Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation in dissolution. After carefully considering the sufficiency and weight of the testimony adduced at the hearing, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses who testified, the documents admitted into evidence, the file in this case, and the post-trial submissions of the interested parties, the Court enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Rule 52(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. This is a proceeding for the dissolution of Tidal Equipment Company, Inc. (“Tidal”), a Delaware corporation, pursuant to 8 Del.C. § 273. The proceeding was originally filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for Kent County on December 19, 1979. (Docket Item [“D.I.”] 9, Ex. 1.) The Court of Chancery on January 28, 1981, permitted the United States of America to intervene in the proceeding pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7424 (D.I. 9, Ex. 23) in order to assert Federal tax liens against the property owned by George J. Hanhauser. (Id., Ex. 22.) On February 23, 1981, this proceeding was removed from the Court of Chancery to this Court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1444, 2410, 1345 and 1441(b). (D.I. 1.) As previously noted, the present dispute concerns the ownership of Tidal’s stock.

2. The dissolution proceeding was instituted by the filing of a verified Petition by George J. Hanhauser and Marjorie M. Hanhauser, his wife. (D.I. 9, Ex. 1.) The petition avers that:

(a) Mr. & Mrs. Hanhauser and Harry J. Michaelson (“Michaelson”) in the summer of 1975 agreed to engage in the metal container business (i.e., purchasing, refurbishing and resale of metal shipping containers). (Id., Ex. 1, 114.)

(b) In order to carry out this agreement, on October 24, 1975, the Hanhausers and Michaelson formed Tidal under the name “Tidal Equipment Corporation, Inc.,” but later on January 29, 1976, through an [935]*935amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation the corporate name was changed to “Tidal Equipment Company, Inc.” which name has remained to date. (Id. II3.)

(c) The Hanhausers “agreed to equally share in the profits and losses of the business venture” with Michaelson (id. II7); it was agreed that a stock certificate evidencing ownership of one-half of the outstanding shares of Tidal would be issued to the Hanhausers “in the name of Marjorie M. Hanhauser” (id. II8); a stock certificate (which cannot be found) “was prepared evidencing the ownership of 100 shares of [Tidal] stock by George and Marjorie M. Hanhauser.” (Id.)

(d) The Hanhausers and Michaelson, as shareholders, had been “unable to agree upon the desirability of discontinuing the joint venture and disposing of the assets of Tidal” (including a wholly-owned subsidiary, Coastal Leasing, Inc. (“Coastal”). (Id. ¶ 13.)

(e) The petition for dissolution was filed by the Hanhausers because Tidal had not been run effectively since mid-1979 when Mr. Hanhauser became ill and Michaelson’s proposal (for the transfer of all Tidal stock to him in return for all Coastal stock to the Hanhausers) was still being negotiated but Tidal was unable to conduct its business effectively. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 10, 11 & 12.)

(f) The Hanhausers thus prayed that the Chancellor enter an order dissolving Tidal and, after the payment of all debts, distributing the remaining funds to Michaelson and the Hanhausers. (Id. Ex. A.)

3. Michaelson in his response on April 16, 1980, to the petition for dissolution generally admitted the averments of the petition but emphatically denied that he had ever entered into an agreement with Marjorie M. Hanhauser (D.I. 9, Ex. 7, ¶ 4) and denied that there was an agreement that any stock certificate would be issued to Mrs. Hanhauser alone. (Id. 11 8.) Michael-son did dispute that Tidal was insolvent and proposed a somewhat different plan of dissolution and distribution of Tidal’s assets. (D.I. 9, Ex. 7.)

4. By a Stipulation and Order entered in the Delaware Court of Chancery on January 28, 1981, Tidal was dissolved and N. Maxson Terry, Jr., was appointed Receiver of Tidal under 8 Del.C. § 279 and has since then served in that capacity. (D.I. 9, Ex. 32.) Over the course of the past several years the affairs of Tidal have been substantially wound up.

5. When the Court of Chancery entered an order permitting the United States to intervene in the proceedings (D.I. 9, Ex. 23), the United States filed a complaint in intervention (id., Ex. 21.) That complaint in substance alleged that Mr. Hanhauser owed the United States a substantial amount of income taxes for the years 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 together with penalty and interest thereon and prayed that the Court adjudge that Mr. Hanhauser was indebted to the United States, that it did have valid and subsisting tax liens which encumbered Mr. Hanhauser’s 50% stock interest in Tidal, that the tax liens be foreclosed against his 50% stock interest in Tidal, and that if Tidal is dissolved the proceeds in dissolution due to Mr. Hanhauser be distributed to the United States towards satisfaction of his outstanding tax liabilities. (Id.)

6. On March 30, 1981, when Mr. Hanhauser did not answer or otherwise plead to the United States’ complaint in intervention, the Clerk of this Court upon the Government’s motion entered a default against Mr. Hanhauser pursuant to Rule 55(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. (D.I. 4.)

7. On June 3, 1981, this Court upon the United States’ motion entered a default judgment against Mr. Hanhauser in favor of the United States for delinquent income taxes, penalties and interest in the amount of $186,441.29, plus statutory additions. The Court also ruled that the tax liens of the United States were foreclosed against the proceeds from the dissolution and liquidation of Tidal which were due to Mr. Hanhauser, and that the Receiver distribute such proceeds to the United States up to the amount necessary to satisfy the judgment of June 3, 1981. (D.I. 11 & 12.)

[936]*9368. Mr. Hanhauser predeceased his wife Marjorie on December 29, 1984 (Tr. 4).1

9. At the evidentiary hearing and in her post-trial brief, Mrs. Hanhauser contends that she, and not her husband, was and is a 50% owner of Tidal’s stock, or alternatively, that 50% of Tidal’s stock was issued in the joint names of George and Marjorie Hanhauser as tenants by the entirety, and by virtue of Mr. Hanhauser’s death, she became the 50% stockholder of Tidal as the surviving spouse. (Tr. 3; D.I. 87, pp. 4-5.) On the other hand, the United States contends that 50% interest in Tidal was always owned by Mr. Hanhauser and not Marjorie Hanhauser. (Tr. 3; D.I. 88, p. 4.)

10.

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

Related

Moser v. Moser
287 A.2d 398 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1972)
Ciconte v. Barba
161 A. 925 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1932)
In re Giant Portland Cement Co.
21 A.2d 697 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1941)
Rauhut v. Reinhart
180 A. 913 (Delaware Orphan's Court, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
623 F. Supp. 933, 57 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1097, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tidal-equipment-co-ded-1985.