Morreale v. Morreale

10 So. 3d 1281, 9 La.App. 5 Cir. 42, 2009 La. App. LEXIS 989, 2009 WL 1464243
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedMay 26, 2009
Docket09-CA-42, 09-CA-43
StatusPublished

This text of 10 So. 3d 1281 (Morreale v. Morreale) 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
Morreale v. Morreale, 10 So. 3d 1281, 9 La.App. 5 Cir. 42, 2009 La. App. LEXIS 989, 2009 WL 1464243 (La. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

CLARENCE E. McMANUS, Judge.

\,STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In 1945, Peter A. Morreale started Tulane Industrial Laundry, Inc. (“TIL”), a Louisiana Corporation. On October 5, 1998, Peter A. Morreale resigned as an officer and director of the corporation and executed a stock redemption agreement in order to preserve the closely held nature of the family business. Peter A. Morr-eale’s son, Peter J. Morreale, Sr. (“Morr-eale, Sr.”), then became President and Chief Executive Officer of TIL. Morreale, Sr. wanted his son to eventually operate the business, so he also began estate planning arrangements to ensure his son would become the sole shareholder of the business. Morreale, Sr. began donating TIL stock to his son and on September 4, 1997, Morreale, Sr. executed an act of donation donating the remaining shares of voting common stock to his son. Morreale, Jr. then became the sole owner and CEO of TIL. At the time of the donation, Morr-eale, Sr. was earning a salary of $350,000.00 per year from TIL, plus payment of his personal expenses. Morreale, Sr. alleged there was an oral agreement made between him and his son at the time of the donation in which Morreale, Jr. and TIL would always provide the same amount of funds to Morreale, Sr. as when he owned the company. Morreale, Sr. contended this amount would include payment of all his personal bills. Morreale, Sr. also executed a Deferred Compensation Agreement on September 4, 1997. This ^agreement provided that TIL would pay Morreale, Sr. $120,000.00 per year to be paid in installments of $10,000.00 per month for a period of fifteen years.

From September 24, 1997 until January 2001, TIL made the $10,000.00 payments to Morreale, Sr. pursuant to the deferred compensation agreement and paid Morr-eale, Sr.’s monthly personal expenses. After January 2001, Morreale, Jr. began paying Morreale, Sr.’s personal expenses with his personal funds and increased his own income from TIL to compensate for these payments. Morreale, Jr. discontinued payment of Morreale, Sr.’s monthly personal expenses in August 2002.

On November 24, 2003, Morreale, Sr. filed a petition for damages naming Morr-eale, Jr. and TIL as defendants asserting *1283 they were required to pay him monthly personal expenses pursuant to the oral agreement which existed.

TIL continued to pay the $10,000.00 monthly payments under the deferred compensation agreement to Morreale, Sr. until December 2005. TIL’s business was affected by Hurricane Katrina, so in November 2005, Morreale, Jr. entered into negotiations with UNIFIRST to sell certain customer contracts. These contracts were sold to UNIFIRST for $2,060,000.00.

On February 23, 2006, Morreale, Sr. filed a second petition against Morreale, Jr. and TIL alleging the defendants had stopped the monthly $10,000.00 payments in breach of the deferred compensation agreement. He claimed he was entitled to past due payments, plus future payments for the remainder of the fifteen years. Morreale, Sr. also claimed Morreale, Jr. was personally liable for these payments because he did not operate TIL as a proper corporation, so TIL’s corporate veil should be pierced.

The two lawsuits were consolidated and trial was held on October 23 and 24, 2007. A judgment and reasons for judgment were issued April 7, 2008 in favor of |,[Morreale, Sr. for $850,000.00. The trial court found that according to the testimony of Ken Weiss, a board certified estate planner, and Harold Asher, a certified public account, the contracts entered into between Morreale, Sr. and Morreale, Jr. were intended to provide Morreale, Sr. with sufficient revenues to fulfill his lifestyle needs and meet his expenses, while also minimizing the taxation on the donation of his interest to Morreale, Jr.

However, Morreale, Sr. had alleged he was owed the personal expenses based on an oral agreement. The trial court found that, according to La. C.C. art. 1846, a verbal contract for an amount in excess of $500.00 must be proven by one witness and other corroborating evidence. The trial court noted the only person to testify regarding this oral contract was Morreale, Sr. and Weiss, the accountant who was present at the execution of the other written contracts on September 4, 1997, who testified he had no knowledge of an oral contract. No other evidence of an oral contract was presented, so the trial court found the testimony presented was not sufficient to prove the existence of an oral contract, and Morreale, Sr.’s claim for payments of his personal expenses for the remainder of his life was denied by the trial court.

With regards to the payments under the deferred compensation agreement, the trial court found it was uncontested that the agreement existed and provided for $10,000.00 monthly payments to Morreale, Sr. until August 2012 and these payments were made until December 2005. However, Morreale, Jr. had claimed Morreale, Sr. had damaged TIL and according to the deferred compensation agreement, TIL had the right to offset against the deferred compensation for any damages Morreale, Sr. caused to TIL. Morreale, Jr. claimed Morreale, Sr. actively began interfering with TIL’s business operations after the payment of his personal expenses ceased. The trial court found no evidence or trial testimony, other than |Bhearsay, to prove that Morreale, Sr. damaged the operations of TIL sufficient to stop payments under the deferred compensation agreement.

The trial court further found no acceleration clause in the agreement, therefore, Morreale, Sr. was due one lump sum for the amount past due from December 2005 until April 2008. The trial court ordered the remaining amounts to be paid in the $10,000.00 monthly installments until August 2012.

*1284 Finally, the trial court found the corporate veil of TIL to be pierced and Morr-eale, Jr. to be personally liable for the payments due to Morreale, Sr. The trial court noted the evidence did show Morr-eale, Jr. was attempting to follow certain corporate formalities, however, the court found that over the years, the business affairs of TIL were not conducted on a corporate footing. Additionally, the trial court noted that TIL’s tax return in 2006 reflected a transfer of $1.7 million into Morreale, Jr.’s account. Therefore, the trial court held Morreale, Jr. personally liable for the payments to Morreale, Sr.

On April 22, 2008, Morreale, Sr. filed a motion for new trial regarding the award of legal interest. Morreale, Jr. filed a motion to amend judgment on April 28, 2008. In this motion to amend, Morreale, Jr. argued the judgment should be amended to correct a calculation error by the trial court. Morreale, Jr. alleged the award should have been $810,000.00, not $850,000.00. He also requested a clarification in the wording of the judgment regarding the award of the future payments due after April 2008.

The trial court issued a judgment on July 28, 2008 granting legal interest on the amount due to Morreale, Sr. and granting the motion to amend providing clarification that only $290,000.00 was due as of the date of the judgment, with $10,000.00 due each month from May 7, 2008 until August 7, 2012. The trial court also set forth specifics regarding how interest was to be calculated on the past | (idue amount of $290,000.00. Further, the trial court found no interest owed on the amounts due thereafter.

Morreale, Sr.

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

Related

Shoemaker v. Giacalone
793 So. 2d 230 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 So. 3d 1281, 9 La.App. 5 Cir. 42, 2009 La. App. LEXIS 989, 2009 WL 1464243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morreale-v-morreale-lactapp-2009.