Snyder v. Westover

107 F. Supp. 363, 42 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 628, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3802
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedJuly 21, 1952
DocketNo. 13521-Y
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 107 F. Supp. 363 (Snyder v. Westover) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Snyder v. Westover, 107 F. Supp. 363, 42 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 628, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3802 (S.D. Cal. 1952).

Opinion

YANKWICH, Chief Judge.

Findings of Fact

I

Plaintiff is an individual residing at Sherman Oaks, City of Los Angeles, California.

II

Plaintiff is now 59 years of age. In 1928 he separated from his wife, Becky, whom he had married in 1917. They had two children, Bernard and Geraldine. The separation was permanent. In 1945, plaintiff and Becky entered into a property settlement agreement and were divorced.

III

Late in 1940 plaintiff, who had been in the used-car business in Denver, moved to Los Angeles, California. There he, together with one Lou Wallace, hereinafter referred to as “Wallace”, acquired a corporate charter by purchase and went into the used-car business. The corporation, California Car Company, hereinafter referred to as “the corporation”, had been organized in 1939, but had done no business prior to its acquisition by plaintiff and Wallace in 1940.

IV

The total investment in the corporation was $2,500. Sixty per cent of the stock was issued to Sam Snyder, twenty per cent to Wallace, and twenty per cent to one Max Mosko. Each 20 per cent was represented by only one share. Plaintiff made his investment in the corporation with his own monies brought by him from Denver, and with additional funds, about $1,500, borrowed by him from Wallace. Wallace also paid for her own stock, but Mosko received his stock without consideration, for qualification purposes. Mosko, a used-car dealer in Denver, remained in Denver and took [364]*364no part in the operation of the corporation. The corporation, however, purchased some of its cars from him.

V

•In the early summer of 1942 plaintiff was on a visit to Denver. There he met with his wife, Becky, and his two children. The son, Bernard, was then 19 years of age, and the daughter, Geraldine, 23. Becky stated to him in the presence of his children that she had been advised that, under the law of California and considering the circumstances of their separation, she could take the entire business away from him. She stated, however, that she would not bother him any more if he would take the two children into the business, with a one-fourth interest in each. When plaintiff returned to Los An-geles, he discussed this matter with his attorney and was advised that his wife’s statement in regard to the California law was correct, and that he had no alternative but to take the two children into the business as his wife demanded.

VI

Because of said demands of his wife, plaintiff settled with Wallace for her interest in the corporation and dissolved it on July 31, 1942. He took over its assets and business. On the next day, August 1, 1942, he entered into a written partnership agreement with his two children covering the said assets and business, and at the same time took from his children a power of attorney in respect to the operation of the business. The partnership so formed, hereinafter referred to as “the partnership”, also bore the name of California Car Company.

VII

For the period of seven months begun January 1, 1942, and ended July 31, 1942, the corporation paid plaintiff a salary of $500.00 a month, and Wallace a salary of $250.00 per month. During that period plaintiff did all the buying of cars and also sold cars and directed salesmen. Wallace took care of all the office matters. She signed checks, kept the books, made collections, handled all. of the work involving the Motor Vehicle Department, and arranged the financing. During that period both plaintiff and Wallace worked from eight or nine in the morning until ten at night, seven days a week. In July, 1942, plaintiff and Wallace agreed that they should receive bonuses for the seven months’ period, $3,-000 for plaintiff and $2,000 for Wallace. No formal resolution was adopted, but the amounts of the bonuses were credited on the books to the respective individual accounts of plaintiff and Wallace. The said bonuses were paid in 1942. The corporation kept its books and made its returns on the accrual basis.

VIII

Among other items, the Commissioner disallowed the corporation’s deduction of the said bonuses. The net income of the corporation for the said seven months’ period, as recomputed by the Commissioner, but before giving effect to the said disal-lowance of bonuses, was $3,039.60. As so recomputed also, the capital and surplus of the corporation on July 31, 1942, was $9,-864.10. The sales for the said period of seven months totalled $119,666.63.

IX

After the dissolution of the corporation Wallace continued as an employee of the partnership, on the basis of a salary of $500.00 per month. However, she no longer worked evenings. The partnership agreement entered into. August 1, 1942, and referred to in paragraph VI above, was as follows:

“Partnership Agreement

“This Agreement entered into as of August 1st, 1942, is a partnership agreement between Sam Snyder, Bernard Snyder and Geraldine Snyder, with reference to the ownership of that certain automobile business known as California Car Co.

Prior to this date the business of the California Car Co. was owned by Sam Snyder; that he transferred a twenty five per cent (25%) interest in said business to his son, Bernard Snyder and a twenty-five per cent (25%) interest in said business to his daughter, Geraldine Snyder, and the interests of the respective partners in the [365]*365California Car Co., as represented by this agreement, are as follows:

■ “It Is Agreed between the parties that Sam Snyder shall be the general manager of the business and adequate books of account shall be kept at the office of the California Car Co., now located at 717 South Vermont Avenue, Los Angeles, California. Said books shall be open to inspection by the other partners at all reasonable times.

“An Accounting of the business shall be made semi-annually or at other times as mutually agreed between the partners, at which time profits may be distributed upon the unanimous agreement of all the partners.

Each partner agrees to maintain public liability and property damage insurance on any of the automobiles that they operate, in order to protect the other partners against any liability resulting from any automobile accident. All such insurance policies are to be left with Sam Snyder at the office of the company. In the event any of the partners fail to take out such insurance, Sam Snyder may place such insurance in effect and charge said partner’s interest with the premium thereof.

“A bank account shall be maintained at any bank selected by Sam Snyder, and checks drawn on said bank account shall bear the signature of Sam Snyder or Sam Snyder and either of the other two partners.

“In as much as Bernard Snyder and Geradine Snyder assume no active part in the management of the business, all said management being delegated to Sam Snyder, no saláries shall be drawn by Bernard Snyder or Geraldine Snyder, and Sam Snyder shall draw a salary mutually agreed upon between all the partners. In the event that either Bernard Snyder or Geraldine Snyder, or both, become actively interested in the business, salaries mutually agreeable to all partners shall be paid each of them for services rendered.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 F. Supp. 363, 42 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 628, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snyder-v-westover-casd-1952.