Frankel v. Moskovitz
| Decision Date | 11 December 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 34755,34755 |
| Citation | 503 S.W.2d 428 |
| Parties | Mary FRANKEL, Executrix of the Estate of Harry Frankel, Deceased, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Milton A. MOSKOVITZ, Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District, Division One |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Anderson, Gilbert, Wolfort, Allen & Bierman, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
Ralph W. Kalish, St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
A civil contempt case. The plaintiff filed a petition on April 3, 1961 praying that defendant be found in contempt of court for disregarding the court's decree and judgment entered July 3, 1958. The Court found defendant in contempt, ordered an accounting, and upon receipt of the referee's report, entered judgment for plaintiff. While both parties filed exceptions to the referee's report, only defendant appealed from the judgment entered pursuant to that report.
The facts in this case revolved around many of the transactions involved in Republic Engineering and Manufacturing Company v. Moskovitz, 376 S.W.2d 649 (Mo.App.1964). 1 Reference to that case may prove helpful although we will discuss the pertinent facts here.
The defendant is considered an expert in the field of ball joints for automotive wheel suspension assemblies. In 1950 plaintiff and defendant organized a corporation named Republic Engineering and Manufacturing Company. This company was operating at a loss in 1953 when Moog Industries entered into negotiations with the company and its owners. As a result of these negotiations, the name of the company was changed to Neo-Tech Engineering and Manufacturing Company; Moog formed a wholy owned subsidiary which it called Republic Engineering and Manufacturing Company (hereinafter Republic); and two contracts were executed on June 17, 1953. The first contract involved the sale by Neo-Tech of its physical assets and goodwill to Republic. The second contract was a license agreement entered into by Moskovitz, Frankel and Neo-Tech as licensors, and Republic as licensee. This license agreement granted Republic the exclusive right to make, use and sell certain automotive devices designed, or to be designed in the future, by Moskovitz, in consideration of the promise of Republic to pay royalties.
On June 15, 1953, two days before the execution of the aforementioned license agreement, plaintiff, defendant and Neo-Tech entered into a contract by which their respective rights and obligations subsequent to the issuance of the license were established. Defendant agreed that he would assign to Neo-Tech, or in the alternative to plaintiff, at the latter's direction, a 50% interest in all future patents issued and patent applications applied for and any improvements thereon concerning certain enumerated automobile devices, including ball joint suspensions.
On January 4, 1957 plaintiff filed a petition in this action 2 by which he alleged that he and defendant had entered into a license agreement with Imerman Screw Products Company to manufacture ball joints for the original equipment market (as opposed to the replacement market); that Imerman had issued a check pursuant to that license agreement payable to both plaintiff and defendant; and that defendant had refused to endorse said check although numerous attempts to obtain his signature were made by plaintiff. Plaintiff prayed for an injunction ordering defendant to endorse the check so that the proceeds may be divided equally between plaintiff and defendant.
A motion by Leon Fine to intervene as a third party plaintiff in the original injunction action was sustained. Since no portion of this appeal is affected by this intervention, no further reference to it will be made.
Defendant, by his answer, sought to have the agreement with plaintiff declared null and void.
Plaintiff and defendant filed a stipulation by which they settled all issues between them in the pending proceeding. In accordance with this stipulation, the court entered a consent decree on July 3, 1958 adjudging the contract of June 15, 1953 to be a valid agreement, supported by adequate consideration; ordering Moskovitz to assign to Frankel a fifty percent interest in a long list of designated patents and patent applications; and ordering that neither party transfer or license his interest without the consent of the other party in any patent or patent application on any structure denominated in the June 15, 1953 contract.
The court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law in this contempt proceeding on March 2, 1967, which may be summarized as follows:
1. Plaintiff and defendant were parties to a consent decree entered July 3, 1958.
2. Paragraph VII of that decree required defendant to assign to plaintiff a 50% interest in 'any patents or reissue patents granted on any of the aforesaid applications * * * and any improvements thereon, together with any patent application now filed or to be made in the future * * * on * * * ball joint suspensions * * *.'
3. Defendant, through his wholly controlled corporation, Micro-Precision Engineering Company, sold ball joints which incorporated new features developed by defendant.
4. These new features constitute 'improvements' within the context of the previous decree.
5. Defendant refused to assign to plaintiff a 50% interest in these developments or in the patent applications presented to defendant by Republic Engineering and Manufacturing Company for execution and later filed by the company pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 118. 3
6. Defendant, at his own election, used these improvements as part of the assets of Micro-Precision, and as his own, failing to give plaintiff a 50% interest in them and failing to divulge and reveal his developments to plaintiff.
7. Such failure by defendant is a 'direct and contumacious violation of said decree.'
The court proceeded to enter the following order and judgment:
'A. Defendant Milton A. Moskovitz is hereby enjoined, ordered and directed not to make any substantial or significant changes in the conduct, ownership, financial affairs (or assets) of Micro-Precision Engineering Company until the accounting hereinafter ordered has been completed, approved and satisfaction made of any judgment entered pursuant thereto.
'B. Defendant Milton A. Moskovitz shall account and pay 'over unto Plaintiff-petitioner Frankel one-half (1/2) of all profits, if any, however realized and in whatever form or manner obtained and held, made by defendant Milton A. Moskovitz and or his wholly controlled corporation, Micro-Precision Engineering Company, in the sale of balljoint suspension devices incorporating the developments of defendant Moskovitz as exemplified by and embodied in Exhibits G (ie F--114A) and J * * *.
'C. The costs of this action, including all referee's fees, and including Plaintiff-petitioner Frankel's attorney's fees in the amount of Seven Thousand ($7,000.00) Dollars are hereby assessed against defendant Milton A. Moskovitz.
The referee was appointed and conducted hearings in the accounting. The referee's report was filed November 1, 1971. Both parties filed exceptions to this report. The court adopted the referee's report and entered judgment pursuant thereto on April 21, 1972. Defendant brought this appeal.
This appeal may, for simplicity, be divided into two main portions. One deals with alleged errors in the amount of plaintiff's award and will be discussed later. The other is defendant's contention that plaintiff is not the real party in interest.
Defendant bases his contention that plaintiff is not the real party in interest on the holding in Republic Engineering and Manufacturing Company v. Moskovitz, supra. That case held that the license agreement granted by Frankel and Moskovitz to Republic, giving Republic the rights to improvements, encompassed only improvements which were patentable. Defendant asserts that since the improvements here have been patented, 4 they come within Republic's exclusive license; that Republic is the only party who might have an interest in the profits Moskovitz has made from those improvements; and therefore, Frankel has no right to sue and cannot be the real party in interest.
A proceeding for civil contempt is one instituted to preserve and enforce rights of a private party to an action and to compel obedience to a judgment or decree in favor of such party. Holt v. McLaughlin, 357 Mo. 844, 210 S.W.2d 1006 (1948); Middleton v. Tozer, 259 S.W.2d 80 (Mo.App.1953). Civil Contempt is a sanction to enforce compliance with a court order or to compensate for any losses sustained by reason of non-compliance. McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 69 S.Ct. 497, 93 L.Ed. 599 (1949). A civil contempt proceeding may only be instituted by a party who has a right under a court order that has been violated and who is seeking to have that right protected or enforced. Middleton v. Tozer, supra. And since it is a proceeding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Robinson v. Michael
...174, 540 P.2d 14 (1975); State ex rel. Cook v. Superior Court of Allen County, 247 Ind. 614, 220 N.E.2d 342 (1966); Frankel v. Moskovitz, 503 S.W.2d 428 (Mo.App.1973); Middleton v. Tozer, 259 S.W.2d 80 Two cases have come to our attention that have dealt specifically with the involvement of......
-
In re Nangle
...900 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Mo.Ct.App.1995); St. Louis University v. Cantor, 720 S.W.2d 382, 385 (Mo.Ct.App.1986); Frankel v. Moskovitz, 503 S.W.2d 428, 434 (Mo.Ct.App.1973). 19. State ex rel. Gentry v. Becker, 351 Mo. 769, 174 S.W.2d 181, 183 20. Appellant's Appendix, Ex. F. 21. All American of A......
-
Reed v. Reed
...must be initiated by the issuance and service of new process. Odom, 213 S.W.2d at 951 (emphasis added). Accord, Frankel v. Moskovitz, 503 S.W.2d 428, 434 n.2 (Mo. App. 1973) (plaintiff's contempt action to compel the defendant's compliance to a consent decree directing him to assign to plai......
-
Marriage of Morriss, In re
...(Mo.App. 1978) [Nos. 38957 and 39780, filed August 15, 1978, but not yet officially reported], which cites both Frankel v. Moskovitz, 503 S.W.2d 428 (Mo.App.1973) and R. E. Harrington, Inc. v. Frick, 446 S.W.2d 845 (Mo.App.1969). See also 43 A.L.R.3d 793, "Allowance of Attorney's Fees in Ci......
-
Section 2 Purpose
...used to compensate a party for any losses sustained as a result of noncompliance with the court’s order or decree. Frankel v. Moskovitz, 503 S.W.2d 428 (Mo. App. E.D. 1973). The purpose of civil contempt is remedial for the benefit of the complainant, not to punish. Tashma v. Nucrown, Inc.,......
-
Section 10 FineCompensatory
...measured by the pecuniary loss sustained by the complainant, Levis v. Markee, 771 S.W.2d 928 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989); Frankel v. Moskovitz, 503 S.W.2d 428 (Mo. App. E.D. 1973); R.E. Harrington, Inc. v. Frick, 446 S.W.2d 845 (Mo. App. E.D. 1969), and absent evidence of pecuniary damage, recover......
-
Section 4 Parties and Procedure
...claimed to have been violated. Hoog v. Hoog, 545 S.W.2d 303 (Mo. App. E.D. 1976); Jafarian-Kerman, 424 S.W.2d 333; Frankel v. Moskovitz, 503 S.W.2d 428 (Mo. App. E.D. 1973). The contempt proceeding is an additional remedy afforded by law and is auxiliary to the main action. It is not necess......