Bruce v. Cole
Decision Date | 24 January 2003 |
Citation | 854 So.2d 47 |
Parties | Michael David BRUCE v. Harry COLE, Jr., and South Butler Medical Holdings, Inc. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Randy Myers of Richard Jordan, Randy Myers & Ben Locklar, P.C., Montgomery; and Simeon F. Penton II of Kaufman & Rothfeder, Montgomery, for appellant.
John E. Enslen of Enslen, Johnston & Pinkston, L.L.P., Wetumpka, for appellees.
Harry Cole, Jr., sued Michael David Bruce for specific performance, to require Bruce to sell his stock in South Butler Medical Holdings, Inc. ("Medical Holdings"), to Cole as allegedly provided by a written agreement among the two men and Medical Holdings. Bruce similarly counterclaimed against Cole for specific performance, to require Cole to sell his stock in Medical Holdings to Bruce as allegedly provided by an alleged oral agreement between only the two men. In the same counterclaim, Bruce also claimed against Cole for damages for Cole's alleged promissory fraud in allegedly entering the oral agreement with no intention of performing. In the course of the pleadings, Medical Holdings itself became Cole's coplaintiff seeking to require Bruce to sell his stock in Medical Holdings to Medical Holdings itself as distinguished from Cole.
The opposing parties eventually filed cross-motions for summary judgment against each other, and the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Cole and Medical Holdings and against Bruce on all claims. Specifically, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Cole and Medical Holdings on their respective claims for specific performance, ordered Bruce to sell his stock in Medical Holdings to Medical Holdings itself, and entered summary judgment against Bruce on the oral contract and promissory fraud theories asserted in his counterclaim. The only factual determinations on the merits expressly stated by the order are "there is [or there being] no genuine issue of material fact" and "[t]he Court finds no promissory fraud." Bruce appeals all of these adverse rulings; and we affirm the summary judgment as it applies to all claims.
On November 2, 1998, Cole owned all of the 1,000 shares of stock issued by Medical Holdings. That same day, Cole sold Bruce 490 of those shares for the sum of $50,000. As part of the sale, Bruce and Cole signed a Restrictive Stock Transfer Agreement, which provides, in pertinent part:
Exhibit "A" to the Restrictive Stock Transfer Agreement reads:
On November 2, 1998, the bylaws of Medical Holdings read, in pertinent part:
On that same day, November 2, 1998, Cole and Bruce, as shareholders of all of the stock of Medical Holdings, elected Bruce a director, to serve with Cole, the only other director; and Cole and Bruce, as such directors, elected Cole as the president and Bruce as the secretary and the treasurer of the corporation.
The function and value of Medical Holdings was that it owned 61% (later 50%) of South Butler Medical Services, L.L.C. ("Medical Services"), which, in turn, wholly owned (subject to the debt for the purchase price) the Georgiana Hospital and affiliated clinics in Butler County. The only shareholder in Medical Services other than Medical Holdings was South Butler Medical Enterprises, Inc. ("Medical Enterprises"), which was wholly owned by Dr. Jeff Voreis of Butler County. Cole wholly owned still another related corporation, South Butler Medical Management, Inc. ("Medical Management"), which, by contract with Medical Services, managed the Georgiana Hospital and affiliated clinics. About the time of the November 2, 1998 transactions, both Medical Management and Medical Services severally employed Bruce as the chief financial officer of each.
Medical Holdings did not pay Bruce a salary or fringe benefits and did not prepare Internal Revenue Service W-2 forms for Bruce. Medical Management paid Bruce's salary, and Medical Services paid Bruce's health insurance premiums. Medical Holdings did not reimburse Medical Management or Medical Services any portion of Bruce's salary or fringe benefits.
According to Bruce's deposition testimony, two weeks after he and Cole signed the Restrictive Stock Transfer Agreement, Cole orally broached the subject of a "put-call" agreement. According to Bruce, the "put-call" proposal by Cole was that, if either of them offered to purchase all of the other's shares in Medical Holdings for a stated price, the offeree could decline to sell his shares and could demand to buy all of the offeror's shares for that same stated price per share.1 Bruce testified that he orally accepted Cole's "put-call" proposal, and that, in reliance on this alleged oral "put-call" agreement, Bruce purchased his home.
Cole denied ever discussing a "put-call" arrangement. He stated that he never intended to sell his stock to Bruce. Indeed, Cole testified, the terms of the loans for the purchase of the Georgiana Hospital and clinics provided that the lending bank could call the loans, if Cole, an individual guarantor of the loans, were to sell his stock to anyone.
According to Bruce's deposition testimony, he, Cole, and Dr. Voreis met in July 1999 to discuss the value of the Georgiana Hospital and affiliated clinics in order for each man to prepare a personal financial statement to submit to the bank which had lent Medical Services the money to buy the hospital and clinics. The bank required the statements of Cole and Dr. Voreis, who had personally guaranteed the loan, but did not require one of Bruce, who submitted one nonetheless. The three men valued the hospital and clinics at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. LeFleur (Ex parte LeFleur)
... ... Bruce v. Cole , 854 So. 2d 47, 54 (Ala. 2003)." Farr v. Gulf Agency , 74 So. 3d 393, 39798 (Ala. 2011). Discussion The director argues that the ... ...
-
Southland Bank v. A & a Drywall Supply
... ... Forrest S. Latta and Leronne Riddick-Seals of Bowron, Latta & Wasden, P.C., Mobile; and R. Bruce Barze, Jr., of Balch & Bingham, LLP, Birmingham, for amicus curiae Alabama Defense Lawyers Association, in support of the appellants ... Therefore, we address the merits of the promissory-fraud claim notwithstanding Bruce v. Cole, 854 So.2d 47, 58 (Ala.2003) ("an oral promise that is void by operation of the Statute of Frauds will not support an action against the promisor ... ...
-
Norman v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
... ... 2007) (under Alabama law, a tort claim may not turn on a provision that is part of a contract voided by the Statute of Frauds); Bruce v. Cole , 854 So. 2d 47, 58 (Ala. 2003) ("[A]n oral promise that is void by operation of the Statute of Frauds will not support an action against ... ...
-
Glenn Constr. Co. Llc v. Bell Aerospace Serv. Inc.
... ... (Doc. # 50, at 2 (citing Doc. # 56 Ex. 2, Cole Dep. 157:1158:25, 160:3; Ex. 3 Mott Dep. 25:1226:9)). 9 ii. The Anticipated Column Loads Glenn Construction contends that BWSC miscalculated the ... (Doc. # 66, at 20 (citing Bruce v. Cole, 854 So.2d 47, 58 (Ala.2003)); Holman v. Childersburg Bancorp., Inc., 852 So.2d 691, 699702 (Ala.2002); Ex parte Bad Toys Holdings, Inc., ... ...