Evar, Inc. v. Kurbitz, 40955
| Decision Date | 30 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 40955,40955 |
| Citation | 77 Wn.2d 948,468 P.2d 677 |
| Parties | EVAR, INC., a Washington Corporation, Respondent, v. Albert KURBITZ, Petitioner. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Perry J. Robinson, Yakima, for petitioner.
Tonkoff & Dauber, J. P. Tonkoff, Yakima, for respondent.
Jack P. Scholfield, State Bar Counsel, Seattle, amicus curiae.
This action, together with at least one other pending in Yakima County, is to determine the ownership of stock, and management, and control of several closely held corporations.
The principal action, Cause No. 26833, entitled Velma Kurbitz v. Albert B. Kurbitz, is for divorce, division of property, and temporary relief pendente lite. See Kurbitz v. Kurbitz, Wash., 468 P.2d 673 (1970).
The instant case, Cause No. 51917, and Cause No. 51919, entitled Albert B. Kurbitz et al., v. Ralph Uber and Velma Kurbitz, appear to be the preliminary 'infighting' subsidiary to a determination of ownership and division of property in the principal divorce action.
The sole assignment of error before us for review, pursuant to a writ of certiorari, is that:
The court erred entering the order of March 21, 1969, which enjoined the defendant (Albert B. Kurbitz) from voting the corporate stock registered in his name and directing him to transfer it and other stock to the plaintiff. (Evar, Inc.).
The order of March 21, 1969 sought to be reviewed provides that the defendant be and he hereby is restrained and enjoined from voting said stock in the Yakima Medical Arts, a corporation, which stock is in the amount of 5368 shares and that Evar, Inc., the plaintiff, has the right to vote said stock.
* * * that the defendant be and he is hereby ordered, within ten days, to prepare a document notifying the Yakima Medical Arts corporation that said stock in the sum of 5368 shares was transferred to Evar, Inc., a corporation, and that Evar, Inc. is the owner thereof.
* * * that the defendant, forthwith, transfer all stock of the Crescent Medical Center, now standing in defendant's name, to Evar, Inc. amounting to 16,500 shares of stock.
* * * that all other property and matters considered in this hearing will be reserved Until the time of trial of the above captioned matter. (Italics ours.)
In view of the disposition we make of this case in its present posture, it is not necessary that we set forth the detailed facts relied upon by the trial court when it entered its order of March 21, 1969, quoted Supra. It is, however, necessry to outline the procedure which led to entry of the order.
This action was commenced November 8, 1968, by Evar, Inc., a Washington corporation, against Defendant Albert Kurbitz. The complaint prays that Mr. Kurbitz be required: (a) to deliver to the officers of the plaintiff corporation property belonging to it, which is in his possession and under his control; and (b) to give a complete and full accounting of all moneys received by him on behalf of the corporation. In addition, the complaint prays for a money judgment for corporate moneys and property allegedly converted by defendant Kurbitz for his own use.
November 8, 1968, the same day this action was filed, the trial court issued an order to Mr. Kurbitz to show cause why he should not deliver certain corporate property to plaintiff, Evar, Inc. The show cause order appears to ask the same relief asked in the complaint.
November 19, 1968, the show cause order (identified by the trial judge as a motion) came on for hearing at the same time a motion for a temporary restraining order pendente lite in case No. 26833, and a motion for a temporary injunction in case No. 51919, were presented to the court.
As a result of the combined hearing on November 19, 1968, the trial court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order which directed Mr. Kurbitz to surrender and deliver certain property to Evar, Inc. The motion in case No. 51919 was denied. The record in the instant case makes no reference to the court's disposition of the motion for a temporary restraining...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. State of Washington, Civ. No. 9213—Phase I.
...without security and thus in clear violation of state law. See Irwin v. Estes, 77 Wash.2d 285, 461 P.2d 875 (1969); Evar, Inc. v. Kurbitz, 77 Wash.2d 948, 468 P.2d 677 (1970); RCW 7.40.080. In each case the state has virtually conceded the irreparable injury necessary for a preliminary inju......
-
United States v. State of Mich.
...without security and thus in clear violation of state law. See Irwin v. Estes, 77 Wash.2d 285, 461 P.2d 875 (1969); Evar, Inc. v. Kurbitz, 77 Wash.2d 948, 468 P.2d 677 (1970); RCW 7.40.080. In each case the state has virtually conceded the irreparable injury necessary for a preliminary inju......
-
Robert K. Hall, , LLC v. Feigenbaum
...period. 28.Christensen, 162 Wash.2d at 374, 173 P.3d 228. 29.SeeRCW 4.44.470; Hockley v. Hargitt, 82 Wash.2d 337, 345, 510 P.2d 1123(1973). 30.Evar, Inc. v. Kurbitz, 77 Wash.2d 948, 951, 468 P.2d 677 (1970); Irwin v. Estes, 77 Wash.2d 285, 286, 461 P.2d 875 (1969). 31.State v. Smith, 106 Wa......
-
Bergen Industries and Fishing Corporation v. Joint Stock Holding Company Dalmoreproduct, 53351-7-I (WA 3/28/2005)
...order or preliminary injunction against a non-governmental party. Cedar-Al Prods., 49 Wn. App. at 765. (citing Evar, Inc. v. Kurbitz, 77 Wn.2d 948, 950-51, 468 P.2d 677 (1970) (citing RCW However, the trial court did not err by invoking RCW 6.32.120 to grant an injunction pending the outcom......
-
§65.6 Analysis
...or because the party obtaining the order did not comply with the order, the order is not effective. Evar, Inc. v. Kurbitz, 77 Wn.2d 948,468 P.2d 677 (1970);Irwin, 77 Wn.2d 285. Once a bond is posted for a temporary restraining order, it is generally effective for the injunction unless it is......