United States v. Bulls

233 F. Supp. 622, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7408
CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama
DecidedAugust 21, 1964
DocketCiv. A. No. 622-E
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 233 F. Supp. 622 (United States v. Bulls) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Bulls, 233 F. Supp. 622, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7408 (M.D. Ala. 1964).

Opinion

JOHNSON, District Judge.

This action, instituted by the United States of America, seeks to recover of the defendants the sum of $45,231.49 upon the general theory that a deficiency judgment was rendered in Civil Action No. 581 — E, styled United States of America v. Simmons Gardens, Inc., by this Court on August 22, 1962, in favor of the United States and against Simmons Gardens, Inc., in the amount sued for in this case on an indebtedness which resulted from a foreclosure and sale by the Federal Housing Administration on property that secured an indebtedness from the corporation. The United States says that the corporation defaulted in its mortgage payments on November 1, 1960, and that the default continued until the foreclosure in December, 1961. The case is now submitted to this Court upon the issues as made up by the pleadings and proof. Upon this submission this Court now, in this memorandum opinion, makes the appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The United States asks this Court to (1) impose a trust or equitable lien on the assets of each defendant, (2) require an accounting of each of the defendants relating to the assets and liabilities, and (3) declare each of the defendants indebted to the United States in the sum of $45,231.49, plus interest. Specifically the theories plaintiff proceeds upon are:

(1) That the defendants, A. C. Bulls, Sr., A. C. Bulls, Jr., Ethel S. Bulls, George S. Bulls, A. C. Bulls and Sons, and Bulls Realty Company, individually and in their fiduciary capacities, failed to pay the debt owed to the United States as required by Title 31, Sections 191 and 192, United States Code Annotated, when Simmons Gardens, Inc., was insolvent and after default by said corporation on its mortgage obligation to the United States. In this connection the United States says that it was and is entitled to a priority of payment out of the assets of Simmons Gardens, Inc., during the entire time that said corporation was insolvent and in default on its mortgage obligation. The United States says in connection with this theory that after insolvency and default, the defendants removed and transferred certain assets of Simmons Gardens, Inc., which should have rightfully been available to pay the mortgage indebtedness due the Federal Housing Administration.
(2) That it is entitled to recover as a preferred stockholder in Simmons Gardens, Inc., and claims in this connection that the defendants in transferring said assets of Simmons Gardens — thereby making said assets unavailable to discharge the mortgage obligation due the United States— [624]*624breached their fiduciary obligation as directors and officers of the corporation.
(3) That it is entitled to recover in this case in that the defendants preferred general creditors by transferring assets of Simmons Gardens, Inc., to said general creditors, the effect of said transfers being preferring these general creditors over the claim of the United States, and that said action was for the purpose of hindering and delaying and defrauding the United States in its claim.
(4) That it is entitled to recover in this case by reason of the fact that the defendants illegally commingled the assets of Simmons Gardens, Inc., with the assets of other corporations and with their individual assets; that said commingling has made it impossible for the United States to ascertain and follow the assets of Simmons Gardens, Inc.; that said commingling of funds which the defendant held in trust for Simmons Gardens, Inc., requires that the individual and corporate funds of the defendants of which said trust funds were commingled, be impressed with the trust in favor of the United States to the extent of the unpaid mortgage indebtedness due the United States.

Each of the defendants acknowledges that Simmons Gardens, Inc., held the title to a Federal Housing Administration guaranteed mortgage rental housing project in Macon County, Alabama, until June, 1962; that the corporation defaulted in its obligation under the mortgage sometime prior to December, 1961, when foreclosure proceedings were instituted. To each of the other claims and contentions as made by the United States in this case, each of the defendants, separately and severally, pleads the general issue. In this connection, it was specifically understood, as reflected by the pretrial order made and entered in this case on November 9, 1963, that this general issue plea included but was not necessarily restricted to the contentions that neither of the defendants made any priority payments out of the funds of Simmons Gardens, Inc., during the time that that corporation was insolvent and in default on its mortgage payments to the Federal Housing Administration. The defendants further deny that they breached any fiduciary obligation they owed as directors, officers, stockholders or agents of Simmons Gardens, Inc., and that they dissipated and wasted any of the assets of that corporation. The defendants further specifically deny that they trans-. ferred or permitted the transfer of any of the assets of Simmons Gardens, Inc., the effect of which was to prefer creditors over the claim of the United States, or to hinder or delay or defraud the United States in the collection of its claim; and the defendants further deny that they directly or indirectly, jointly or separately, commingled any of the funds of the Simmons Gardens corporation with the funds of any other corporation or with any of their individual funds.

Simmons Gardens, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Alabama with its principal place of business at Tuskegee Institute, Alabama. Its common stockholders are, and were at all times pertinent to this case, A. C. Bulls, Sr., A. C. Bulls, Jr., Ethel S. Bulls and George S. Bulls. The directors are, and were at all times pertinent to this case, A. C. Bulls, Sr., A. C. Bulls, Jr., Ethel S. Bulls and George S. Bulls; these same individuals were the officers and agents of the corporation Simmons Gardens, Inc. The business of the corporation was to operate a one and two story garden-type housing project consisting of 60 rental units. A. C. Bulls, Sr., held all but three shares of the common stock, with E. S. Bulls, A. C. Bulls, Jr., and George S. Bulls each holding one share. The project was insured by the Federal Housing Administration under Section 608, Title VI of the National Housing Act (Title 12 U.S.C.A. § 1743), and, according to the Articles of Incorporation, the Federal Housing Administration held 100 shares of preferred stock in the corporation. On or about October 15, 1949, the defendant corporation executed its [625]*625mortgage and note to a Federal Housing Administration “approved lender” in the sum of $324,200. This indebtedness was increased to $345,800 by subsequent agreement between the Simmons Gardens, Inc., and the “approved lender,” with the approval of the Federal Housing Administration. The note provided for payments of monthly installments of principal, plus interest at the rate of 4% per annum and, as is usual in such cases, further provided that in the event any installment was unpaid on the date due of the next maturing installment, the entire indebtedness was to become due and payable at once, without notice, at the option of the holder of the note. To secure the payment of the note, Simmons Gardens, Inc., executed a mortgage in favor of the “approved lender” with the housing project, including the real estate and certain personal fixtures, described as security in the mortgage.

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

Related

A. C. Bulls, Sr. v. United States
356 F.2d 619 (Fifth Circuit, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
233 F. Supp. 622, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bulls-almd-1964.