Fresno Lawyer – Randolf Krbechek

The California Supreme Court recently considered when a transfer of ownership occurs in the context of an estate planning trust.  The dispute arose in under Proposition 13, which sets the rules for property tax reassessment.

According to the court, “When Helfrick died, the residence’s assessed value for tax purposes was $96,638, with total taxes due of $1,105.  Upon her death, defendant County of Los Angeles reassessed the residence and increased its valuation for tax purposes to $499,000.  For the next three tax years, the County sent property tax bills of, respectively, $5,492, $5,764, and $6,245.”

That’s the dispute – do the property taxes increase by 500% upon the owner’s death?  Stated the court, “The starting point for our conclusion lies in the fact that, during her lifetime, Helfrick transferred the residence to a trust of which she was the sole present beneficiary and as to which she held the power to revoke.”

The court explained that “under general principles of trust law, trust beneficiaries . . . are regarded as the real owners of that property . . . Moreover, property transferred to, or held in, a revocable inter vivos trust is deemed the property of the settlor.”

The court cited to a legislative task force, which had explained that:  “Revocable living trusts are merely a substitute for a will.  The gifts over to persons other than the trustor are contingent; the trust can be revoked or those beneficiaries may predecease the trustor.”

According to the court, “although transferring legal title to the residence to herself as trustee, Helfrick, as sole trust beneficiary and holder of the revocation power, continued to hold the entire equitable estate personally and effectively retained full ownership of the residence.”

It’s a relief to see such a clear statement from the California Supreme Court.  A living trust is established for estate planning purposes as a will substitute.  Such a trust can be amended or revoked by the trustor (i.e., the property owner) during the his or her lifetime, just like a will.  In the court’s explanation, “Any interest that beneficiaries of a revocable trust have in trust property is ‘merely potential’ and can evaporate in a moment at the whim of the settlor.”

What happens to the property after death?  At this point, the trust cannot be modified.  “Upon Helfrick’s death, the trust became irrevocable and the entire equitable estate in the residence, which Helfrick had personally held during her lifetime, transferred from Helfrick to Steinhart and her siblings (or their issue) as beneficiaries of the irrevocable trust.”

The same thing with a will – the instrument becomes permanent at death, and the property passes to the persons named as the beneficiaries.  Here’s the point at which the court had to make a slight leap.

With a will, Probate Code section 7000 states that, “title to a decedent’s property passes on the decedent’s death to the person to whom it is devised in the decedent’s last will.”  However, there is no statutory counterpart in California’s trust laws.  Hence, the court filled the gap by holding that, “upon [the] settlor’s death, [the] trust became irrevocable and the full beneficial interests in the property transferred to the residual beneficiaries of the trust.”

Thus, during her lifetime, “Helfrick personally held the entire equitable estate in the residence and was regarded as the residence’s real owner.  Under the terms of the trust, upon her death, Helfrick transferred not just a life estate, but the entire fee interest – i.e., the full bundle of rights – to, collectively, Steinhart and her siblings (or their issue) . . . Helfrick, who was the sole beneficial owner of the residence before her death, retained no interest in the residence after her death.”

In the case before the court, the decedent left a life estate to one heir, with the remainder interest passing to certain siblings.  The life estate tenant claimed that the property was not subject to reappraisal until her death.  The court disagreed:  “That circumstance does not alter the fact that, upon Helfrick’s death, the entire equitable estate in the residence was transferred from Helfrick to, collectively, Steinhart and her siblings (or their issue) as beneficiaries of the irrevocable trust . . . This transfer constituted a ‘change in ownership’ within the [meaning of Proposition 13].”

The holding is not surprising but again reflects the legal tensions that arise from the use of a trust agreement as a substitute for a will.

Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles, 2010 DJDAR 1913 (Feb. 5, 2010)

In the recent case of Sharabianlou v. Karp, 2010 DJDAR 2039 (Feb. 8, 2010), the court considered the following facts.

“Sharabianlou [the buyer] offered to purchase a commercial building owned by Berenstein Associates.   The [buyer] engaged real estate agent Ronald Karp to represent them in the transaction.  Soon after the offer was made, however, the parties learned of environmental contamination on the property.”

“Faced with uncertainty about the scope of the contamination and the cost of its cleanup, and unable to agree on who should pay for the remediation, the parties failed to close escrow.  After further efforts to resuscitate the transaction were unsuccessful, the [buyer] sued the [seller] and the [real estate agent].”

“The second amended complaint also included claims against the [real estate agent] for breach of fiduciary duty . . . The [buyer] contends that [the real estate agent] breached his fiduciary duty by failing to disclose to their lender’s appraiser that environmental contamination had been discovered on the property.”

So far, that’s a traditional basis for a breach of fiduciary claim.  The agent is required to disclose all material facts concerning the subject of the agency.

Thus, the buyer “asserts that [the real estate eagent] knew he was relying on the appraisal to determine whether to exercise a contractual right to walk away from the contract.  [The buyer] claims that had the contamination been disclosed to the appraiser, the property could have appraised for less than $1.7 million, and he would have exercised his right under Addendum 4 to cancel the Agreement.”

That’s the background for the court’s review – did the real estate agent “fail to disclose the existence of the Piers environmental reports to US Bank’s appraiser?”  In its analysis, the court held that,

“A claim for breach of fiduciary duty by a real estate agent has three elements; a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of a fiduciary relationship, its breach, and damages proximately caused by that breach.  The trial court found no breach of fiduciary duty because the evidence showed the [buyer] and US Bank already knew that the toxic hazard and potential remediation cost was undefined and unknown.”

This finding that will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is unsupported by evidence, and would undermine any claim for relief.

The buyer made a peculiar concession to the appellate court.  “On appeal, the [buyer] does not contest any of these findings.  Instead, [the buyer] claims that as a matter of law, ‘[the real estate agent] owed a duty to disclose the existence of environmental contamination on the property when he must have known that his failure to do so would affect his principals’ substantive rights.’”

The appellate review could have ended at this point, because there was no finding of a failure to disclose.  Instead, the court held held “appellants cannot show any prejudicial error because they failed to present evidence of damages proximately caused by [the real estate agent’s failure to disclose.”

The court explained that “there simply is no evidence that the property would have appraised for less than $1.7 million, and thus any claim that the [buyer] would have been entitled to cancel the Agreement on that basis is entirely speculative.  Without such evidence, the [buyer] cannot show that [he was] damaged by the alleged breach of fiduciary duty.”

That’s a bit of a strange turn.  The concession that there was no failure to disclose should have ended the inquiry.

Sharabianlou v. Karp, 2010 DJDAR 2039 (Feb. 8, 2010)

The Fourth District Court of Appeal held in Le vs. Pham,  2010 DJDAR 297 (January 6, 2010) “that where the bylaws of a pharmacy corporation provide that one stockholder must give another a right of first refusal on the sale of any stock, it is a breach of fiduciary duty for the selling stockholder to attempt to sell to a third party in violation of the right of first refusal.”

The problem is that the court fails to adequately explain which fiduciary duty was breached, instead conflating breach of contract with breach of fiduciary duty.

To be sure, the Les did wrong by Pham, their fellow shareholder.  “Le and his wife owned 50 percent of the corporate shares of Newland Pharmacy, while Pham owned the other 50 percent.  Corporate bylaws obligated the Les to give Pham written notice of any intent to sell or transfer.  The bylaws also gave Pham a right of first refusal on any sale based on that notice of intent.”

The Les wanted to sell their stock and “gave written notice to Pham (by certified mail) of their intent to sell their 50 percent share to Paul and Kimngang Hoang for a total of $70,000, cash at transfer.”  The Phams replied by stating that they needed 30 days to review the proposal.

The Les did not wait but instead sold their stock, however, neither at the price nor on the terms set forth in the notice.  Instead, “the Les sold their shares [for]$24,000, considerably less than the $70,000 offered to Pham.  Nor was it a cash sale.  The Hoangs [buyers] were allowed to make installment payments on the $24,000.”

OK.  Breach of contract through and through.  Further, the sale caused problems with the Board of Pharmacy, as “Hoang [the buyer] did not file a change of ownership form with the California Board of Pharmacy, an omission which prompted a ‘cease and desist’ order from the board that closed the pharmacy down for about three months beginning in March 2007.”

Not content with this set of problems, “the seller and the buyer sued the other shareholder [Pham], contending that the transfer was valid in accordance with Newland Pharmacy’s bylaws.”

Pham prevailed on the complaint at trial.  “The court, in its statement of decision, ruled that the Les’ attempted transfer of shares to the Hoangs was null and void because it did not comply with the corporate bylaws.  It was obvious, after all, that the Les had attempted to sell the shares to the Hoangs for a better price ($24,000 as distinct from $70,000) and on better terms (installments rather than cash) than had been offered Pham in the notice of intent to sell.”

Pham, the other shareholder, countered with cross-complaint for breach of fiduciary duty, which is where it gets interesting.  According to the court, “as a matter of common law, we divine a public policy in favor of the strict enforcement of the corporate bylaws of pharmacy corporations restricting transfers of shares in such corporations. . . The statutes and regulations just mentioned reflect a public policy, ala Snyder’s Drug Stores, seeking a reasonably snug fit between the ownership of pharmacies and their control by licensed pharmacists.”

“Having ascertained a public policy in favor of control of pharmacies by licensed pharmacists, we apply California corporate common law involving protection of vulnerable stockholders from other stockholders who have the power, by the choice of to whom shares will be sold, to affect the actual conduct of the corporation.”

Why take this step?  The contract already protects the remaining shareholder.  There is no need to search for new law.

Here’s where the court takes a leap.  “The common law has involved fiduciary duties imposed on majority or controlling shareholders.  In this case, however, it is not the quantum of shares owned by the Les that made Pham as vulnerable as any minority shareholder in a close corporation, but the fact that, by circumventing the bylaws, the Les could adversely affect, as Justice Traynor put it in Ahmanson, the ‘proper conduct of the corporation’s interest.’”

OK, so which duty was violated?  The duty not to take advantage of a corporate opportunity?  The duty of loyalty? (Remember that “the primary duty of the fiduciary is to receive the res and manage it for the benefit of the cestui.  This is the fiduciary’s duty of management.”) The court does not say, instead painting broadly (and carelessly) with a generic “fiduciary duty.”

Thus, the court reasoned that, “it is clear that a fiduciary duty was violated by that attempted transfer, based on mutual vulnerability in which the stockholders found themselves.  By unilaterally [ ] selling to the Hoangs and effectively excluding Pham from the process, the Les jeopardized the ‘proper conduct’ of the business and unilaterally deprived Pham of an important right given her by the corporate bylaws:  the right to control who were her ‘partners’ in a regulated professional corporation.”

That’s sloppy legal reasoning.  Fiduciary duties are gap fillers, applied to regulate dealings between persons in a close relationship.  The sellers breached the contract, and the remedies for breach of contract were adequate to make the other shareholder whole.  The court did not need to reach for a “fiduciary duty” based on a “duty of good faith and fairness.”  This result leads only to ambiguity and imprecise analysis.

Le vs. Pham, 2010 DJDAR 297 (January 6, 2010)

A second recent opinion reinforces the fundamental rule that an inter-vivos revocable trust is not an entity separate from the trustee.  In Presta v. Tepper, 2009 DJDAR 16603 (Nov. 27, 2009), the court provided the following analysis:

“Two men enter into a real estate investment partnership, each acting in his capacity of trustee of a family trust.  The question is: who are the ‘partners,’ the men, or the trusts?

“The answer is ‘the men.’  A trust of the type formed by both men in this case is simply a fiduciary relationship, governed by the Probate Code, by which one person or entity owns and controls property for the benefit of another.  Such a trust is not an entity separate from its trustee, and cannot independently do anything – it cannot sue or be sued; it cannot enter into agreements; and it cannot fulfill the fiduciary duties of a partner.”

Oh boy.  You can’t say it much more clearly than that.

The litigation followed the death of one of the partners.  The partnership was formed by Ronald and Robert, each of whom signed the partnership agreement on behalf of his respective estate planning trust.  The court made short order of the argument that the trust, not the individual, was the partner.  Said the court.

“We have no trouble concluding, as a matter of law, that it was they, and not their respective ‘trusts,’ who were the partners in the two agreements at issue herein.

“The fundamental flaw in Renee’s argument is that it assumes a trust is an entity, like a corporation, which is capable of entering into a business relationship such as a partnership.  It is not.  It has long been established under California law that an express trust of the type created by Presta and Tepper is merely a relationship by which one person or entity holds property for the benefit of some other person or entity:  A trust is any arrangement which exists whereby property is transferred with an intention that it be held and administered by the transferee (trustee) for the benefit of another.”

The court further explained that the tax status of the trusts did not change its analysis in one iota.  True, the trust had its own taxpayer identification number and true again, the trust was required to report income and file a tax return.  Yet, the court sliced to the heart of the matter, explaining that:

“The tax status of these trusts is nothing more than a reflection of their essential purpose:  to establish a special category of property ownership by which the property is divided between the trustee who holds record title and controls it, and those who are entitled to receive its benefits.

“The fact that the taxing authorities chose to create a separate category for assessing the tax liabilities associated with such properties suggests nothing more than a determination that there are tax liabilities associated with such properties – and that since neither the trustee nor the beneficiaries owns the entirety of the trust property, those liabilities cannot simply be assigned to either of those in their individual capacities.  Nothing in that determination changes the nature of such trust relationships, nor conveys ‘entity’ status upon them.”

Hooray for the court, which got it right on all points.  The popular revocable estate planning trust is not an entity, it is a relationship.  (Of course, the trust also partakes of contract, but many obligations arise outside of the contract.)

A pair of decisions from last month reinforce the fundamental rule that an inter-vivos revocable trust is not an entity separate from the trustee.  The first opinion, 1680 Property Trust v. Newman Trust, 2009 DJDAR 16161 (Nov. 17, 2009) states the rule with elegant simplicity, to wit:

“Unlike a corporation, a trust is not a legal entity.  Legal title to property owned by a trust is held by the trustee.  A trust is simply a collection of assets and liabilities.  As such, it has no capacity to sue or be sued, or to defend an action.”

In 1680 Property Trust, it was alleged that the trustee had made fraudulent statements.  The trustee had died more than one year before the lawsuit was filed.  California law provides that an action against the decedent must be filed within one year from the date of death.  (The one-year rule applies to claims that existed as of the date of death.  If the claim arises subsequent to death, then an action can be filed after the general one-year period.)

To circumvent the application of the one-year rule, plaintiff sought to sue the trust itself.  The court held that there were no such claims against the trust, only claims against the trustee.  And, because the trustee had died more than one year before the lawsuit was filed, the action was barred.

Explained that the court, “It appears that whatever its form, the substance of the claims in this case is for the personal misconduct of the settlor/trustee on behalf of and for the benefit of the trust, that was completed entirely before the settlor/trustee died, and for which the settlor/trustee could have been held personally liable.  The action is one that could have been ‘brought on a liability of the person’ (Code of Civil Procedure section  366.2, subd. (a)), and is based ‘on a debt of the decedent’ even though brought against the successor trustee . . . Section 366.2 was intended to impose a time limit on such claims, regardless of whom the action was brought against.  Accordingly, the claims against Newman Trust are barred by section 366.2.”

Let’s say that again so we all understand it:  An estate planning trust is a legal fiction.  It is not an entity.  Period.  The trust has no separate existence, no matter what promises may be peddled by asset-protection salesman.  For all intents and purposes, the trust and the trustee are identical.

A decision handed down this month involved an all-too-common situation.  In King v.  Johnson, 2009 DJDAR 15871 (Nov. 9, 2009), the husband provided for a testamentary trust.  After the husband’s death in 1991, his widow became the trustee.  The widow later suffered from declining health.  One of the daughters was apparently close to her mother.  The daughter influenced the widow to transfer property out of the trust.

Stop me if this story sounds familiar.  The widow also took out a personal loan secured by the property she transferred out of trust.  When the loan went into delinquency, the lender foreclosed and took title to the property.  Not surprisingly, the daughter benefitted from this arrangement, as she inherited 100% of the widow’s separate property, but held only a 30% interest in the former trust property.

Another child, who was also a beneficiary under the trust, brought an action against daughter based on these facts.  The trial court found that “[daughter] actively participated in [widow’s] breaches of fiduciary duty . . . Specifically, the court found that [daughter] was involved in the transactions that resulted in [widow] transferring property out of the trust without consideration at a time when [widow] was in failing physical and mental health, and that [daughter] exercised undue influence over [widow] with regard to these transactions.”

However, the trial court found that plaintiff lacked standing, because a successor trustee had been appointed.  On appeal, the decision was reversed in favor of the aggrieved beneficiary.

The appellate court explained that, “As a general rule, the trustee is the real party in interest with standing to sue and defend on the trust’s behalf.  Conversely, a trust beneficiary cannot sue in the name of the trust.”

This rule did not preclude the action against the daughter.  Thus, “a trust beneficiary can bring a proceeding against a trustee for breach of trust.  Moreover, it is well established [ ] that a trust beneficiary can pursue a cause of action against a third party who actively participates in or knowingly benefits from a trustee’s breach of trust.”

In this case, a successor trustee had taken office, and he had not sued daughter for her wrongful acts.  The court expressly held that “a beneficiary may bring a claim against a third party who participated in a trustee’s breach of trust, despite the appointment of a successor trustee.”

Explained the court, “Ordinarily, when a third party acts to further his or her own economic interests by participating with a trustee in such a breach of trust, the beneficiary will bring suit against both the trustee and the third party.

“However, it is not necessary to join the trustee in the suit, because primarily it is the beneficiaries who are wronged and who are entitled to sue.  The liability of the third party is to the beneficiaries, rather than to the trustee, and the right of the beneficiaries against the third party is a direct right and not one that is derivative through the trustee.”

Even more, the court held that “evidence of a conspiracy is [not] required in order to hold a third party liable for participating in or benefitting from a trustee’s breach of trust . . . Although the trial court in this case determined that [plaintiff] had not proved the existence of an actual conspiracy between [widow] and [daughter], this is of no consequence to [the beneficiary’s] standing to bring a claim against [daughter] for [her] role as a third-party participant in [widow’s] breach of trust.”

The court also addressed the liability of the daughter for her conduct as de facto trustee after her mother’s death.  During this period, the daughter collected rents for which she did not account.  This conduct also gave rise to a claim against the daughter.

Explained the court, “a trustee de son tort [is] a person who is treated as a trustee because of his wrongdoing with respect to property entrusted to him or over which he exercised authority which he lacked.”

Added the court, “It is a well settled rule in the law of trusts that if a person not being in fact a trustee acts as such by mistake or intentionally, he thereby becomes a trustee de son tort . .  A person may become a trustee by construction, by intermeddling with and assuming the management of property without authority.

“Such persons are trustees de son tort just as persons who  assume to deal with a deceased person’s estate without authority are administrators de son tort.  During the possession and management by such constructive trustees they are subject to the same rules and remedies as other trustees.”

Proof yet again that trusts can be a hotbed for litigation.  The lack of court supervision over an estate can lead family members to take advantage of the situation.  This court drew a firm line against such wrongful conduct.

A growing body of case law during the past 20 years has addressed the issue of whether and when corporate directors owe fiduciary duties to creditors.  A California appellate court has finally weighed in on this issue, and provided clear guidance on the question.  (We can only hope that the California Supreme Court will not to take the case up for review, because they are sure to muddy the waters.)

In Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle (Oct. 29, 2009) 2009 DJDAR 15513, the court of appeal explained that “Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC is the largest creditor of the failed Pluris, Inc. . . . The thrust of Berg’s claim, as finally pleaded, was that the individual directors owed a fiduciary duty to Berg and other Pluris creditors on whose behalf Berg is purportedly proceeding.”

The trial court sustained demurrers to the complaint without leave to amend, which ruling was affirmed.  The appellate court gave a good, clear analysis of the issue, explaining that, “it is without dispute that in California, corporate directors owe a fiduciary duty to the corporation and its shareholders and now [ ] must serve ‘in good faith, in a manner as such director believes to be in the best interests of the corporation and its shareholders.’”

The court explained that the potential fiduciary obligations owed by corporate directors to creditors arose from an unpublished 1991 Delaware decision involving the leveraged buyout of MGM, “which laid the ground for the insolvency exception to the general rule that directors owe exclusive duties to the corporation and its shareholders, but not to shareholders.”

The question involves what duties are owed by corporate directors to unpaid creditors when the corporation is insolvent.

The Berg & Berg court squarely held that, “under the current state of California law, there is no broad, paramount fiduciary duty of due care or loyalty that directors of an insolvent corporation owe the corporation’s creditors solely because of a state of insolvency [ ].  And we decline to create any such duties, which would conflict with and dilute the statutory and common-law duties that directors already owe to shareholders and the corporation . . .

“We accordingly hold that the scope of any extra-contractual duty owed by corporate directors to the insolvent corporation’s creditors is limited in California, consistent with the trust-fund doctrine, to the avoidance of actions that divert, dissipate, or unduly risk corporate assets that might otherwise be used to pay creditors’ claims.  This would include action that involves self-dealing or the preferential treatment of creditors.”

The court further held that a finding of actual insolvency is needed to trigger these duties, rather then the amorphous “zone or vicinity of insolvency.”  Thus, the court held that “there is no fiduciary duty prescribed under California law that is owed to creditors by directors of a corporation solely by virtue of its operating in the ‘zone’ or ‘vicinity’ of insolvency.”

(Note that the court also observed that “there are multiple definitions of insolvency,” adding that “a finding of insolvency by the standard of the debtor not paying debts when they become due requires more than merely establishing the existence of a few unpaid debts.”)

Thus, the court held that, “under the trust-fund doctrine, upon actual insolvency, directors continue to owe fiduciary duties to shareholders and to the corporation but also owe creditors the duty to avoid diversion, dissipation, or undue risk to assets that might be used to satisfy creditors’ claims.”

Even more, the court held that decisions of the directors are presumptively entitled to protection under the business judgment rule.  “The rule establishes a presumption that directors’ decisions are based on sound business judgment, and it prohibits courts from interfering in business decisions made by the directors in good faith and in the absence of a conflict of interest.”

Explained the court, “in most cases, the presumption created by the business judgment rule can be rebutted only by affirmative allegations of fact which, if proven, would establish fraud, bad faith, overreaching or an unreasonable failure to investigate material facts . . . The failure to sufficiently plead facts to rebut the business judgment rule or establish its exception may be raised on demurrer, as whether sufficient facts have been so pleaded is a question of law.”

I for one do not support the expanding toward “tortification” of business law.  The decision in Berg & Berg is a step in the right direction.  The court gives clear guidance, holding that the fiduciary obligations of directors to creditors arise only when the corporation is actually insolvent, and then only when the creditors can plead facts showing that the actions of the directors were in violation of the business judgment rule.  The court also held that it will not intervene in the “ill-defined sphere known as the zone of insolvency.”

This case marks the second published appellate opinion driven by the unpaid creditor.  (The prior opinion is Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v.  Sherwood Partners (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 802.)   Considering that legal counsel included O’Melveny & Myers and Winston & Strawn, it is almost certain that the legal fees to date in this dispute exceed $1 million.

Here’s a point that seems somewhat unfair.  The trial judge based his decision on an unpublished 2006 trial court decision from the federal district court for the Northern District of California.

The problem for trial attorneys is that we cannot cite unpublished opinions as authority in our briefs.  It seems incongruous to have a trial court make a decision based on an unpublished federal court ruling, then have that unpublished ruling cited with approval by the California appellate court.

This problem arises because the two major legal publishers – Lexis and West – continue to make unpublished decisions available via their websites.  When these unpublished decisions become part of the database, it becomes very tempting to cite them, notwithstanding the California Rules of Court.  In this case, the trial court and the appellate court found the temptation to great to resist.

The diverse use of trusts is represented in a recent case from the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  In Gale v. Carnrite, 559 F.3d 359 (5th Cir. 2009), the dispute involved tax liabilities arising from the sale of membership interests in a Nevada limited liability company.  The underlying facts were as follows:

In 1999, Gale expressed interest in purchasing a condominium unit located in San Jose Del Cabo, Baja California Sur, Mexico.  The condominium was owned by Villa Rayos Del Sol, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company.

After inquiring about the purchase, the Gales learned that legal restrictions affected the transaction.  Specifically, as explained in the decision, “under Article 27 of the Constitution of Mexico, only Mexicans by birth or naturalization or Mexican companies may acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within the zone of 100 kilometers along the frontiers and 50 kilometers along the shores of the country.”

The condominium unit was located within such a restricted area.  In order to proceed with the purchase, the Gales were informed that they could not acquire the condominium directly.  Per the decision, “Instead, they would be required to purchase the outstanding membership interests in the limited liability company (Villa Rayos), which was the beneficial owner of the leasehold interest in the condominium under a Mexican Bank Trust arrangement known as a “fideicomiso.”

The court explained that “a fideicomiso is a property-ownership arrangement complying with Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution under which a Mexican Bank Trust obtains legal title to a piece of real property within the prohibited zone, and a foreigner, as the beneficiary of the trust, enjoys the beneficial interest in the property, including all the usual rights of ownership.”

The limited liability company’s sole asset was the beneficial interest in the condominium.  The only purpose of the limited liability company was to serve as the beneficiary of the fideicomiso.

As to the history of the entity, “Villa Rayos was formed in 1996.  Its original members and owners were the Sonenshine Family Trust.  [The Sonenshines] previously purchased the beneficial interest in the fideicomiso from the condominium’s developer in 1991 for $715,000, and subsequently transferred the beneficial interest [in the condominium to the limited liability company] in 1996.  In February 1999, [defendant] Carnrite purchased all of the outstanding membership interest in [the limited liability company] for $1,725,000.”

In December 1999, the Gales purchased all of the membership interests in the limited liability company from defendant Carnrite.  The purchase price was $2,125,000.  The seller warranted that at the close of escrow, “the LLC has and will have no liabilities of the any nature, including without limitation tax liabilities due or to become come due.”

The sale closed in January 2000.  “Neither [the seller] nor anyone else reported the transaction to the Mexican government; no Mexican income or capital gains taxes were paid on the transfer.”

In September 2005, the Gales sold their interest in the limited liability company to a third party for $2,400,000.  According to the case, “a substantial Mexican capital gains tax liability resulted, determined by using the basis of the fideicomiso from 1991.”

The trial court found that the seller breached the warranty made to the Gales in 1999, on the grounds that “at the time of closing, Villa Rayos had a built-in capital gains tax liability equal to the difference between the Gales’ purchase price and the original adjusted basis.”  At trial, experts presented evidence regarding interpretation of the Mexican tax code.

The court of appeal reversed the decision, holding in favor of the seller.  The court assumed that (i) the 1999 transaction was a taxable event and (ii) “any tax liability initially fell on [defendant] Carnrite.”  The question addressed by the court of appeal was “whether, under Mexican law, the LLC was obligated to pay taxes on the 1999 transaction.”

In holding for the defendant, the court held that “the Gales did not show that [the seller’s] failure to pay such taxes resulted in a liability for [the limited liability company].”

The focus of the appellate decision was whether the individual defendant’s “failure to report or pay taxes on the transfer created a tax liability for [the limited liability company].”  Explained the court, “both under [the experts’] analysis and the language of the [contract] itself, the individual defendants’ failure to pay resulted in a tax liability for the Gales (the buyer), not [the limited liability company].”

The court further explained that, “the warranty provision covered only the tax or other liabilities of the LLC.  [However, limited liability company] was neither the buyer nor the seller in the transaction.  The 1999 transaction altered the ownership of the membership interest of Villa Rayos, but there is no factual or legal basis shown by this record that [the limited liability company, i.e.,] Villa Rayos itself became liable for anything or that it would become liable at the default of others.”

The court added that, “by contrast, in 2005 transfer, [the limited liability company] itself sold the beneficial interest in the fideicomiso to [the new purchaser.  In the disputed transaction], Villa Rayos was the seller.”

The court concluded that, “the seller provided a warranty that the asset being transferred did not itself have any liabilities.  If the act of transferring created liabilities or passed on a pre-existing liability of the seller, that risk was not covered by the warranty.

“A warranty that the buyer was not getting any liabilities of any nature from any source would be a valuable one.  We conclude, though, that this war they did not provides comprehensive protection.  Because Carnrite’s failure to pay taxes for 2000 is the only breach the Gales allege, Carnrite is entitled to judgment on the breach of contract claim.”

The decision seems to apply a narrow interpretation of contract law.  However, it illustrates the thorny tax issues that can arise when trust assets are transferred.

A recent federal case started off with an intriguing headnote – “Lawyer does not breach of fiduciary duty or contracts by advising termination of co-counsel where advice was privileged and protected by agreements.”  From the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, no less.  In the end, the court tackled the issues on narrow grounds, giving rise to a puzzling result.

In Crockett & Myers, Ltd. v.  Napier, Fitzgerald & Kirby, LLP (9th Cir. October 21, 2009), the dispute arose between two lawyers, both of whom represented the same client in a personal injury matter.  The decision explains that, in 2001 “Wendi Nostro retained Brian Fitzgerald, a New York lawyer known to her family, to investigate whether the death of her husband in Nevada was due to potential medical malpractice.”

The dispute arose after Mr. Fitzgerald (the New York lawyer) was able to locate a J.R. Crockett, a Nevada lawyer who was apparently skilled in personal injury matters.  The client and the two attorneys entered into a written retainer agreement.  The written retainer agreement with Ms. Nostro expressly provided that  “attorneys fees were to be divided equally between Crockett and Fitzgerald.”

At the end of the day, the court refused to enforce this provision, although its rationale is not clear.  According to the court, Mr. Fitzgerald, the New York lawyer, requested that plaintiff pay her share of the court costs.  This request occurred while the litigation was ongoing.  Plaintiff then contacted her Nevada attorney, Mr. Crockett, “who advised her that ‘it was their policy not to go after client for court costs’ and that ‘she could fire Mr. Fitzgerald.’”

That’s what plaintiff did – she terminated the New York lawyer.  The underlying case later settled, but the Nevada lawyer did not forward 50% of the attorneys fees to Mr. Fitzgerald.  The New York lawyer filed suit against the Nevada lawyer, alleging “breach of an oral referral agreement, breach of the written retainer agreement, breach of the duty of loyalty and as a fiduciary by reason of the joint venture, and breach of fiduciary duties by reason of joint representation.”

Now, that would be an interesting legal issue.  Do attorneys owe each other fiduciary duties when two attorneys jointly represent a client on the same issue?  Unfortunately, the court sidestepped this interesting issue.  Instead, the court held that the claims based on breach of fiduciary duty were barred because, under Nevada law, the communications between the Nevada lawyer and plaintiff were privileged.

Explained the Ninth Circuit, “It is in the public interest attorneys speak freely with their clients, even if attorneys occasionally abuse the privilege . . . Nevada [recognizes a] policy of granting officers of the court the utmost freedom in their efforts to obtain justice for their clients.”

For reasons that are not entirely clear, the court next held that the Nevada lawyer was not liable for breach of the written retainer agreement, specifically, that a breach did not arise out of the failure of the Nevada attorney “to include [the New York lawyer] in the discussion with [plaintiff] regarding [payment of] costs.”

Big question here – why didn’t the New York lawyer set forth a claim based on interference with his contractual expectancy?  The opinion does not address this issue, and it does not seem to have been plead as a cause of action.

Finally, the court held that the New York lawyer was entitled to recover damages under a quantum meruit theory based on “the reasonable value of the services.”  The appellate court remanded the matter for a determination of such reasonable value, but expressly rejected the New York lawyer’s “argument that he was entitled to 50% of the fees as contemplated by the retainer agreement.”

This seems like an unfair result for the New York lawyer.  He helped secure competent local counsel and obtained a written agreement with the client and the other attorney providing for an equal division of attorney’s fees.  What more could he do?  After the local attorney recommended that the New York attorney be fired, the originating lawyer lost his right to recovery of fees.  There must be something missing, because the opinion controverts the contractual expectations of the parties, without good cause.

A fiduciary’s liabilities can sometimes arise in unexpected contexts.  A recent decision involving an estate tax liability held that a fiduciary was personally liable for unpaid estate taxes.

In Carroll v. United States, 2009-2 USTC ¶ 60,577 (N.D. Ala. 2009), the taxpayer was denied a bankruptcy discharge for unpaid estate taxes arising from the estate of his deceased father.

George Carroll, Sr. died on March 17, 1998.  The two executors of his estate were the appellant, George Carroll, and his two siblings (Stephen Carroll and Judy Bullington).  At the time of death, the total estate tax owed was $2,554,547.  That’s a big liability.

Federal tax law permits an estate tax to be paid in installments pursuant to 26 U.S.C. section 6166.  The administrators of the estate contracted to pay the estate tax in installments.  The final installment would have been due on December 17, 2012.  However, the estate stopped making payments in 2004.  Through 2004, Mr. Carroll and his sister paid approximately $1.2 million of the tax debt.

Between 1998 in 2006, the executors distributed various assets of the estate to themselves.  Judy Bullington received real property (including her father’s primary residence) and cash.  Stephen Carroll and George Carroll received stock held by the estate in two close corporations: United Gunite, Inc. and Pressure Concrete, Inc.  The brothers “planned to use the profits from these two entities to make the necessary installment payments to the United States.”

Now, I don’t know about the construction industry in Alabama.  However, gunite is used in the pool contracting business.  And pool contracting in Fresno has tanked in the last 18 months.  Tanked to a level that is almost unbelievable.

So the economy didn’t help the Carroll brothers.  Even worse, in 2001 Stephen Carroll pled guilty to a count of “felony bribery of a public official.”  Thus, things went from bad to worse for the Carroll brothers.

Apparently seeing the end, “on February 28, 2004, George Carroll, in his capacity as an executor of his father’s estate, transferred the last of the estate’s liquid assets – $733,613 in cash – to a bank account owned by Pressure Concrete.”  The cash infusion was not sufficient to revive the business, and in 2006, George Carroll bought out his brother’s interest in the company for $29,500.  Shortly thereafter, the company failed.

In 2007, George Carroll filed a bankruptcy petition, along with approximately 1.2 million other Americans.  The government disputed his request for discharge with respect to the unpaid estate taxes.  The court agreed, in a decision affirmed on appeal.

Explained the court, “executors of an estate become personally liable for the estate tax owed to the United States if they distribute property to beneficiaries before fully satisfying the estate’s tax debt.”  The tax regulations add that, “if the executor distributes any portion of the estate before all the estate tax is paid, he is personally liable, to the extent of the payment or distribution, for so much of the estate tax as remains due and unpaid.”

George Carroll attempted to escape liability, arguing that the value of the estate was artificially inflated for tax assessment purposes, and that the corporation failed because he “was not prepared to handle the business that he inherited from his father.”  The court rejected these arguments, instead of focusing on the transfer of $733,613 in cash to the struggling corporation.  The court deemed the transfer to be a “willful” act within the meaning of the bankruptcy laws, such as to deny a bankruptcy discharge to George Carroll.

Thus, the case is a word of caution to all persons who administer an estate, whether by way of probate or pursuant to a trust.  If an estate tax is owed, and if the administrator transfers assets to the beneficiaries before the tax is paid in full, the administrator can be held personally liable, and the estate tax liability will not be discharged in bankruptcy.  Think twice before you distribute assets when an estate tax is unpaid.

(The court adds a humorous aside.  In 2006, the failing corporation, Pressure Concrete, “acting at George Carroll’s direction, issued two separate checks, totaling $25,000, drawn and payable to the University of Alabama athletic department for the purchase of football tickets – a fact proving only (if proof were needed) that, in this State, Alabama football is a secular religion promoting misplaced and false values.”)

Carroll v. United States, 2009-2 USTC ¶ 60,577 (N.D. Ala. 2009)