RS & P/WC FIELDS LTD. v. BOSP INVESTMENTS

• Decision Date: 30 July 1993
• Docket Number: No. 91 C 2496.,91 C 2496.
• Citation: 829 F. Supp. 928
• Parties: RS & P/WC FIELDS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOSP INVESTMENTS and BOMAT Investments, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

829 F. Supp. 928

RS & P/WC FIELDS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOSP INVESTMENTS and BOMAT Investments, Defendants.

No. 91 C 2496.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D.

July 30, 1993.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Stephen Anthony Gorman, Richard G. Schultz, Foran & Schultz, Chicago, IL, Jerome J. Shestack, David Smith, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, PA, for plaintiffs.

Neal L. Wolf, Janet Steffes Baer, Laura Ann Mondrowski, Michael P. O'Neil, Winston & Strawn, Chicago, IL, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

HOLDERMAN, District Judge:

This litigation involves disputes between the general partners (the "plaintiffs") and the limited partners (the "defendants") of several real estate limited partnerships. The plaintiffs have asked the court to interpret the proper calculation methodology for the "buy-sell" provisions of the partnerships (Count I), and they have asked the court to declare that the defendants could not invoke the "buy-sell" provisions in the spring of 1991 (Count III). The defendants have asserted third-party claims and counterclaims to recover allegedly excess management fees ("management fee issue") and allegedly improper accounting fees ("accounting fee issue"). After a bench trial on all issues, for the reasons stated herein, the court finds in favor of the defendants on Count I and III, and in favor of the plaintiffs on defendants' third-party claims and counterclaims as to the management fee issue and accounting fee issue.

                                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                                            Page
                I. BACKGROUND FACTS .................................................931
                     A. The Master Agreement ............................................... 933
                     B. The Form of Agreement of Limited Partnership ....................... 937
                     C. The Form of Management Agreement ................................... 941
                     D. The Guaranty Agreement ............................................. 946
                     E. The Indemnity Agreement ............................................ 946
                     F. The First Amendment to Master Agreement ............................ 946
                     G. The 13 Limited Partnerships ........................................ 947
                        1. The Parties ..................................................... 947
                        2. Capital Contributions, Loans and Fees ........................... 949
                        3. The Agreements of Limited Partnership ........................... 949
                        4. The Management Agreements ....................................... 950
                        5. Assignment of the Management Agreements ......................... 951
                     H. The Exercise of Buy-Sell Rights by BOSP and BOMAT .................. 951
                        1. The Count I Partnerships ........................................ 951
                           a.  2120 Corporate Drive Associates Limited Partnership ......... 951
                           b.  WC West Chicago Associates Limited Partnership .............. 952
                           c.  TC Associates Limited Partnership ........................... 952
                           d.  MP Melrose Park Associates Limited Partnership .............. 953
                        2. The Count III, Counterclaim and Third Party Partnerships ........ 953
                           a.  W65 Bedford Park Associates ................................. 953
                           b.  CG Coral Gables Associates Limited .......................... 953
                           c.  SW Associates Limited Partnership ........................... 953
                           d.  32500 Van Born Associates Limited Partnership ............... 953
                           e.  601 West Polk Associates Limited Partnership ................ 953
                           f.  32500 Capitol Avenue Associates Limited Partnership ......... 953
                           g.  WC Fields Limited Partnership ............................... 954
                           h.  Barnside Apartment Associates Limited Partnership ........... 954
                           i.  Newtown Associates Limited Partnership ...................... 954
                

                                                                                           Page
                     I. Commencement of this Litigation ................................... 954
                II. DISCUSSION ............................................................ 955
                     A. Count I ........................................................... 955
                        1. The Relevant Contract Provisions ............................... 956
                        2. Plaintiffs' Ambiguity Theory ................................... 960
                        3. Contract Reformation ........................................... 961
                           a. Business Reality ............................................ 962
                           b. Phantom Income .............................................. 964
                           c. Variance in Limited Partnership Agreements .................. 967
                           d. Lack of Authority/Failure to Read ........................... 968
                           e. Summary ..................................................... 969
                     B. Count III ......................................................... 969
                        1. Existence of a Forbearance Agreement ........................... 970
                           a. Burch's consent Re: Grub & Ellis ............................ 970
                           b. Negotiation for Amended Barnside Agreement .................. 971
                           c. Creditor Memorandum ......................................... 971
                           d. Burch Memorandum ............................................ 971
                        2. Equitable Estoppel ............................................. 972
                     C. Management Fees ................................................... 973
                        1. Contract Provisions and Correspondence ......................... 974
                        2. Unilateral Right Theory ........................................ 977
                        3. Existence of an Agreement ...................................... 977
                     D. Accounting Fees ................................................... 978
                        1. Charging Accounting Fees ....................................... 979
                        2. KTP as a Sheridan Affiliate .................................... 981
                     E. The Accounting .................................................... 981
                     F. Terminating the Partnerships ...................................... 981
                III. CONCLUSION ............................................................ 981
                

I. BACKGROUND FACTS

The plaintiffs and defendants established 13 limited partnerships, which were formed between April, 1987 and May, 1990, for the purpose of acquiring, developing, owning, operating, and selling commercial real estate properties.

There are 12 plaintiffs in this action: 1) RS & P/WC Fields Limited Partnership ("Fields LP"), an Illinois limited partnership, all of whose partners are citizens of Illinois and Florida; 2) W 65 RS & P Associated Limited Partnership ("W65LP"), an Illinois limited partnership, all of whose partners are citizens of Illinois, New York and Florida; 3) CG RS & P Associates Limited Partnership ("CGLP"), an Illinois limited partnership, all of whose partners are citizens of Illinois and Florida; 4) RS & P/Capitol Avenue Associates Limited Partnership ("Capitol LP"), an Illinois limited partnership, all of whose partners are citizens of Illinois and Florida; 5) WM/RS & P Limited Partnership ("WMLP"), an Illinois limited partnership, all of whose partners are citizens of Illinois, New York and Florida; 6) SW/RS & P Limited Partnership ("SWLP"), an Illinois limited partnership, all of whose partners are citizens of Illinois, New York and Florida; 7) RS & P/Barnside Associates Limited Partnership ("Barnside LP"), an Illinois limited partnership, all of whose partners are citizens of Illinois, New York and Florida; 8) TC/RS & P Limited Partnership ("TCLP"), an Illinois limited partnership, all of whose partners are citizens of Illinois and Florida; 9) RS & P/Addison Associates Limited Partnership ("Addison LP"), an Illinois limited partnership, all of whose partners are citizens of Illinois, New York and Florida; 10) RS & P/Melrose Park Associates Limited Partnership ("Melrose LP"), an Illinois limited partnership, all of whose partners are citizens of Illinois and Florida; 11) RS & P/Polk Associates Limited Partnership ("Polk LP"), an Illinois limited partnership, all of whose partners are citizens of Illinois and Florida; and 12) RS & P/WC West Chicago Limited Partnership ("West LP"), an Illinois limited partnership, all of whose partners are citizens of Illinois, New York and Florida.

Defendant BOSP Investment ("BOSP") is a California partnership, all of whose partners are citizens of states other than Illinois, New York and Florida.

Defendant BOMAT Investments ("BOMAT") is a Nevada partnership, all of whose partners are citizens of states other than Illinois, New York and Florida.

Third Party Defendant RS & P/Newtown Associates Limited Partnership ("Newtown LP") is a Florida limited partnership, all of whose partners are citizens of Illinois and Florida.

Third Party Defendant Edgemont Corporation ("Edgemont") is an Illinois corporation. At all relevant times, Edgemont has been controlled by Robert Sheridan and 100 percent of the stock of Edgemont has been owned by Robert Sheridan.

Third Party Defendant Robert Sheridan & Partners Management Corporation ("RS & P Management") is an Illinois corporation. At all relevant times, RS & P Management has been controlled by Robert Sheridan and 100 percent of the stock of RS & P Management has been owned by Robert Sheridan.

Third Party Defendant The Bridgewood Corporation ("Bridgewood") is an Illinois corporation. Robert Sheridan owns 45% of the stock of Bridgewood, Robert Sheridan's daughter, Beth Sheridan, owns 15% of the stock, and Bruce Kinney owns the remaining 40% of the stock.

This court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, there being complete diversity of citizenship among the parties and the amount in controversy being in excess of $50,000.

The primary, although not only, dispute concerns the...