Cianchette v. Cianchette
| Decision Date | 04 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | Docket: Cum-18-252 |
| Citation | 2019 ME 87 |
| Parties | TUCKER J. CIANCHETTE et al. v. PEGGY A. CIANCHETTE et al. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Reporter of Decisions
Panel: MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.*
[¶1] Peggy A. Cianchette, Eric L. Cianchette, PET, LLC, and Cianchette Family, LLC (collectively, Peggy and Eric) appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Warren, J.) denying their motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial following a jury verdict in favor of Tucker J. Cianchette on his claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent misrepresentation. They argue that the court erred by (1) allowing Tucker to proceed on a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation based upon allegations that, at the time the contract was executed, Peggy and Eric did not intend to perform their obligations under the contract; (2) failingto give a requested jury instruction; and (3) allowing Tucker to proceed on a claim for breach of fiduciary duty when the parties' relationship was governed by a limited-liability-company operating agreement. We affirm the judgment.
[¶2] The following facts, including all justifiable inferences, are drawn from the trial record as viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict. See Hansen v. Sunday River Skiway Corp., 1999 ME 45, ¶ 5, 726 A.2d 220.
[¶3] In 2012, the owner of Casco Bay Ford (the dealership)—a Ford vehicle dealership in Yarmouth, Maine—hired Tucker as general manager. A year later, the owner approached Tucker and offered to sell him the dealership and the real estate upon which it sits. Because Tucker lacked the financial resources to complete the purchase on his own, he brought the opportunity to Peggy and Eric Cianchette, his step-mother and father. Although the owner of the dealership was aware of Peggy and Eric's prospective roles in financing the purchase, he made it a condition of the sale that Tucker be a part-owner of the dealership because he "would have never sold the business to someone that [he] didn't know and was not in the car business."
[¶4] Together, Peggy, Eric, and Tucker formed PET, LLC (PET), to purchase, own, and operate the dealership. Peggy and Tucker are each 33% owners of PET, while Eric owns the remaining 34%. Peggy was named manager of PET and remains in that role to date. Peggy and Eric formed a separate company, Cianchette Family, LLC (Cianchette Family), to own the real estate where the dealership is located.
[¶5] Because the dealership is a certified Ford Motor Company (Ford) dealership, Eric, Tucker, and Peggy each had to receive certain approvals from Ford. Eric and Tucker were required to personally guarantee a "floor plan" line of credit to finance the dealership's vehicle inventory, which they sought from Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC (Ford Credit). Tucker was approved as "dealer principal" or "F(ii)"—a person with proven capacity in the vehicle dealership business who is approved to be the face of the dealership and communicate with Ford.1 Additionally, Ford approved a lease agreement between PET and Cianchette Family for $23,000 per month.
[¶6] In December 2013, PET and Cianchette Family completed their respective purchases of the dealership and the real estate. Almost immediately following the sale, Peggy informed PET that the rent would be nearly tripled to$65,000 and would be paid to a third party, Top of Exchange, LLC—a company owned by Eric and a trust established for the benefit of Peggy and Eric's children, excluding Tucker.
[¶7] The next year, Peggy, Eric, and Tucker began discussions about Tucker purchasing Peggy and Eric's shares of PET, leaving him as the sole owner of the dealership. At Eric's urging, Tucker obtained a loan commitment letter from Androscoggin Savings Bank (Androscoggin). When Tucker presented the commitment letter to Eric, however, Peggy and Eric rescinded the offer to sell their shares. After Tucker pushed Peggy and Eric for a reason why they had had him seek a commitment letter for no reason, he was told "I guess we just wanted to see you fail."
[¶8] In 2015, Peggy directed Michael Cianchette—her son and Cianchette Family's attorney—to move $600,000 out of PET's operating account with Ford Credit and into a new account at Merrill Lynch that was opened by forging Tucker's signature. Because the Merrill Lynch account earned significantly less interest, and because Tucker's compensation was based on all income earned by PET, including interest, his compensation as general manager was reduced. Additionally, Peggy, without any vote by PET's shareholders, made a $375,000 interest-free loan from PET to Cianchette Family for use on a real estate project in Florida. Tucker had no interest in or knowledge of the real estate project. As of the trial date, the loan had not been repaid.
[¶9] That same year, Peggy and Michael approached Tucker at the dealership and presented him with a check for some of his share of PET's profits and an amendment to PET's operating agreement that they wanted him to agree to. The amendment would have converted Tucker's shares in PET into a new lower class of stock that would have allowed Peggy and Eric to take all profits. The amendment also included a waiver of claims for any and all violations of PET's operating agreement that may have occurred up to that point. Tucker refused to sign the amendment.
[¶10] In September 2015, Peggy, Eric, and Tucker again began discussing a sale of Peggy and Eric's interests in PET to Tucker. When Tucker agreed, Peggy and Eric presented him with a purchase and sale agreement that had been drafted by Michael. However, as a condition of the agreement, Tucker was required to first sign the amendment to PET's operating agreement that he had previously refused to sign. Once again, Tucker refused to the sign the amendment and, by extension, the purchase and sale agreement.
[¶11] Two months later, Peggy and Eric presented Tucker with two separate purchase and sale agreements, one for their ownership interests in PET and one for the real estate, each agreement contingent on the successful closing of the other. Peggy and Eric required him to pay a $150,000 nonrefundable deposit to enter into the agreements. Eric later explained that he required the deposit because he wanted it to make it "hurt" if Tucker failed to close the deal.
[¶12] Tucker paid the deposit and signed the agreements with Peggy and Eric. The following provisions were included within the membership agreement and are pertinent to this appeal:
[¶13] To finance his purchase, Tucker secured a loan commitment from Androscoggin and expected the approval of a loan guarantee from the Small Business Association. Tucker also received the approval of Ford to move forward with his purchase and the approval of Ford Credit to secure a "floor plan" in his name alone. Tucker provided documentation of these approvals to Peggy and Eric. To his surprise, Peggy accused him of being dishonest in his disclosures and threatened to terminate the agreements unless Tucker signed a new contingency agreement that required him to provide new disclosures and that extended Peggy and Eric's termination right to January 15, 2016. Tucker signed the new contingency agreement, provided updated disclosures, and again received the necessary approvals to move forward with his purchase.
[¶14] Pursuant to section 6.2 of the membership agreement, Tucker was required to obtain the release of Peggy and Eric's personal guarantees related to the dealership. To this end, Tucker sought and received a draft letter from Ford Credit in December 2015 that purported to release Eric from any future liability on the dealership's floor plan. There is no dispute that the letter did not release any past liabilities already accrued. At the time, however, Tucker believed that the letter was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 6.2 and, despite providing the letter to Peggy and Eric, received no indication that Peggy and Eric believed that the release was insufficient. A representative of Ford Credit testified that, had Peggy and Eric made Ford Credit aware that the draft letter was insufficient, a complete release of liabilities could have been provided on an expedited basis.
[¶15] In January 2016, as the closing date drew near, Peggy and Eric threatened to terminate the sale agreements unless Tucker executed a new amendment that terminated his right to extend the closing date and added...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clavet v. Dean
...4) Mr. Clavet justifiably relied upon the representation as true and acted upon it; and 5) that Mr. Clavet was damaged by it. Cianchette v. Cianchette, 2019 ME 87, ¶ 20, 209 A.3d 745. In this Court's Combined Order on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment, the Court held that an omission by si......
-
Meridian Med. Sys., LLC v. Epix Therapeutics, Inc.
...of the underlying tort—the co-managers of MMS held a fiduciary relationship with the LLC. See 31 M.R.S. § 1559 (2021) ; Cianchette v. Cianchette , 2019 ME 87, ¶¶ 33-35, 209 A.3d 745.7 [¶31] We must therefore determine whether the complaint alleges, with the required specificity, that the co......
-
Cianchette v. Cianchette
...them have existed for years, recently resulting in litigation and a 2018 jury verdict against Eric and Peggy. See Cianchette v. Cianchette, 2019 ME 87, 209 A.3d 745. Despite said personal disputes, Peggy would occasionally send gifts to Tucker's house for his three children. (Def.'s Counter......
-
Dube v. Maine-Ly Lakefront Props., LLC, SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. RE-18-30
...it, and (5) the other person justifiably relies on the representation as true and acts upon it to the damage of the plaintiff. Cianchette v. Cianchette, 2019 ME 87, ¶ 20, 209 A.3d 745; Me. Eye Care Assoc., P.A., v. Gorman, 2006 ME 15, ¶ 19, 890 A.2d 707. The elements of fraudulent misrepres......