Evans v. Galardi (1979) 93 Cal. App. 3d 291 El Dorado is a limited partnership formed...
Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!
Question:
![image text in transcribed](https://s3.amazonaws.com/si.experts.images/answers/2024/05/6648e2af35877_6546648e2aebcab8.jpg)
Transcribed Image Text:
Evans v. Galardi (1979) 93 Cal. App. 3d 291 El Dorado is a limited partnership formed for the purpose of owning and managing certain real property in the City of South Lake Tahoe, California, and of constructing, owning and managing a motel on the premises. Eventually, a motel known as the Rodeway Inn was built. When the partnership was formed in June 1969, plaintiff Lewis W. Evans and defendants John N. Galardi and Richard E. Hodge were the limited partners and entitled to receive all of the partnership net profits. The general partner at all times material herein was a California corporation known as El Dorado Improvement Corporation which operated the motel and whose stock initially was owned entirely by plaintiff and defendants. About September 15, 1970, plaintiff, defendants and El Dorado Improvement Corporation entered into a written contract whereby plaintiff agreed to sell and defendants agreed to purchase for the sum of $50,000 all of plaintiff's right, title and interest in the limited partnership and all of plaintiff's stock in the corporate general partner. Defendants executed and delivered to plaintiff their promissory note for the full amount of the purchase price. The respective obligations were undertaken by the parties as individuals, and not in their status as limited partners or shareholders of the corporate general partner. El Dorado was not a party to the agreement of purchase and sale and did not sign either the agreement or the promissory note. As a result of this transaction, defendants as limited partners in El Dorado each became entitled to 50 percent of its net profits, if any, and became the owners of all of the stock of the corporate general partner. Defendants defaulted on the promissory note and about April 2, 1971, plaintiff brought an action against them in their individual capacity to recover on it. Ultimately judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants individually in the sum of $60,008.15. Will the Plaintiff be successful in collecting a judgment against limited partner Defendants from the general partner El Dorado Improvement Corporation? Issue: Rule: Evans v. Galardi (1979) 93 Cal. App. 3d 291 El Dorado is a limited partnership formed for the purpose of owning and managing certain real property in the City of South Lake Tahoe, California, and of constructing, owning and managing a motel on the premises. Eventually, a motel known as the Rodeway Inn was built. When the partnership was formed in June 1969, plaintiff Lewis W. Evans and defendants John N. Galardi and Richard E. Hodge were the limited partners and entitled to receive all of the partnership net profits. The general partner at all times material herein was a California corporation known as El Dorado Improvement Corporation which operated the motel and whose stock initially was owned entirely by plaintiff and defendants. About September 15, 1970, plaintiff, defendants and El Dorado Improvement Corporation entered into a written contract whereby plaintiff agreed to sell and defendants agreed to purchase for the sum of $50,000 all of plaintiff's right, title and interest in the limited partnership and all of plaintiff's stock in the corporate general partner. Defendants executed and delivered to plaintiff their promissory note for the full amount of the purchase price. The respective obligations were undertaken by the parties as individuals, and not in their status as limited partners or shareholders of the corporate general partner. El Dorado was not a party to the agreement of purchase and sale and did not sign either the agreement or the promissory note. As a result of this transaction, defendants as limited partners in El Dorado each became entitled to 50 percent of its net profits, if any, and became the owners of all of the stock of the corporate general partner. Defendants defaulted on the promissory note and about April 2, 1971, plaintiff brought an action against them in their individual capacity to recover on it. Ultimately judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants individually in the sum of $60,008.15. Will the Plaintiff be successful in collecting a judgment against limited partner Defendants from the general partner El Dorado Improvement Corporation? Issue: Rule:
Expert Answer:
Posted Date:
Students also viewed these accounting questions
-
Selected answer is incorrect During substantive procedures, performing analytical procedures satisfies which primary audit objective: Cutoff Accuracy Existence Completeness 2 answers
-
If production is greater than sales, how does absorption costing net income differ from variable costing net income?
-
The cell in Figure 20.9 could be used to provide a measure of the pH in the cathode half-cell. Calculate the pH of the cathode half-cell solution if the cell emf at 298 K is measured to be +0.684 v...
-
Which of the following is not a means by which information improves decision making? a. increasing information overload b. reducing uncertainty c. providing feedback about the effectiveness of prior...
-
Journalize the following transactions for Santa Fe Art Gift Shop. Explanations are not required. Feb. 3 Purchased $2,800 of merchandise inventory on account under terms 3/10, n/EOM and FOB shipping...
-
question 1. Criminal activity facilitated by identity theft/fraud is largely a four phase process. Discuss and give examples of each. use this text to answer the above question. Britz, M.,(2013)....
-
Mr. Kazi Kwisha is an employee of Malenge Limited. He has provided you with the following information for the year ended 31 st December, 2019. Basic salary per month sh. 45,000 (PAYE sh. 3,000) and...
-
Discuss the key principles of law in relation to the due care required from an auditor that arose from the cases of Kingston Cotton Mill and London and General Bank.
-
How does the transistor width-to-length ratio affect the small-signal voltage gain of a common-source amplifier?
-
Describe a MOSFET NOR logic circuit.
-
Why do you think the audit team leader is likely to spend more time on a given audit than others who may be assigned?
-
Describe the current-voltage relation of an n-channel depletion-mode MOSFET with the gate connected to the source.
-
Consider a study design too investigate the following claim: A medical eye drop is effective in relieving itchy eyes. Two designs are proposed for the study. Plan A: Obtain 240 volunteers from the...
-
In Exercises delete part of the domain so that the function that remains is one-to-one. Find the inverse function of the remaining function and give the domain of the inverse function. f(x) = 16x4 -3...
-
The theory of monopolistic competition is based on three characteristics: (1) product _________, (2) many _________, and (3) free _________.
-
Monopolistic competitive sellers are price _________ and they do not regard price as given by the market. Because products in the industry are slightly different, each firm faces a(n)...
-
In the short run, equilibrium output is determined where marginal revenue equals marginal _________. The price is set equal to the _________ the consumer will pay for this amount.
![Mobile App Logo](https://dsd5zvtm8ll6.cloudfront.net/includes/images/mobile/finalLogo.png)
Study smarter with the SolutionInn App