Goben v. Barry
Decision Date | 26 July 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 57601,57601 |
Citation | 237 Kan. 822,703 P.2d 1378 |
Parties | William Earl GOBEN, Appellee, v. Bernard L. BARRY and United Petroleum, Inc., Appellants. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A point not raised before the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal.
2. Where state law has only an indirect effect upon employee benefit plans subject to the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (1982), and where it is one of general application which pertains to an area of important state concern, the federal statutes do not preempt application of state law.
3. In making a determination of federal preemption, a court should examine those concerns emphasized by Congress in enacting the legislation. State law should be preempted only to the extent necessary to protect achievement of the purposes of the federal act in question.
J. Michael Morris, of Sargent, Klenda, Haag & Mitchell, Wichita, argued the cause, and Gary M. Austerman, of the same firm, was with him on brief, for appellants.
Craig Shultz, of Shultz & Webb Chartered, of Wichita, argued the cause and Dennis Webb, of the same firm, and Stan Spurrier, of Fisher & Monnat, Wichita, were with him on brief, for appellee.
This is an appeal by Bernard L. Barry from further proceedings following remand after our decision in Goben v. Barry, 234 Kan. 721, 676 P.2d 90 (1984) (hereafter Goben I ). The underlying facts are set forth in detail in Goben I and will not be repeated here.
Suffice it to say, we found in Goben I that Goben and Barry had entered into a joint venture for the purpose of dealing in the acquisition and development of oil and gas properties. We further found that Barry had breached his fiduciary duty to his fellow co-adventurer by ousting him from the business and refusing to account for his interest therein. We stated:
Goben I, 234 Kan. at 730-31, 676 P.2d 90.
This appeal grows out of the procedural gymnastics resulting from Goben's attempt to enforce our mandate and Barry's equally diligent efforts to avoid it.
Our mandate to the lower court was filed February 24, 1984. On March 8, 1984, the district court filed a journal entry of partial judgment consistent with our directions in Goben I, that is, judgment for plaintiff for one-half of the assets and net profits of United Petroleum, Inc. (UPI); prejudgment interest on plaintiff's share of the distributions to Barry and his family in excess of those made to plaintiff; and dissolution of UPI pursuant to K.S.A. 17-6804(d). Additionally, the trial court made certain findings and orders to effectuate our directions in Goben I. First, it entered a money judgment for plaintiff as follows:
The trial court noted additional distributions from UPI to Barry and required further hearings to determine whether they also should be made part of the judgment for plaintiff. Finally, the judge appointed a receiver for UPI, who was to carry out the mandate of this court directing dissolution of UPI.
In attempting to collect on the partial judgment rendered by the court Goben instituted garnishment proceedings against all UPI funds on deposit with the Fourth National Bank & Trust Company of Wichita. Answers filed by the bank disclosed various accounts and certificates of deposit. Six of the certificates of deposit, totaling $134,720.75, were held in employee benefit plans designated UPI "Money Purchase Retirement" and UPI "Profit Sharing Plan." Barry unsuccessfully contested the garnishment of the funds represented by the six certificates and this appeal followed.
The retirement and profit sharing plans were initially established February 28, 1980, effective retroactively as of March 1, 1979. The action in Goben I was filed December 21, 1978. The plans were set up primarily for the benefit of the Barry family members. The plans were set up as trusts with separate legal entities, were promulgated under federal law, were approved by the Internal Revenue Service and were subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (1982). On February 8, 1984, subsequent to this court's opinion of January 13, 1984, in Goben I, Bernard L. Barry and Marilyn J. Barry as directors of UPI adopted on behalf of the corporation resolutions affecting both the retirement and profit sharing plans and their respective trusts. These resolutions purported to: (1) terminate the plans; (2) fully vest the participants in the plans; (3) amend the plans to provide that notwithstanding termination, the respective trusts established for the plans were to continue until benefits had been paid to the participants upon the earliest of death, disability or attainment of normal retirement age; and (4) replace Bernard L. Barry, original trustee of the trusts, with Marilyn J. Barry, his wife.
For purposes of this appeal, the critical question is whether funds placed in an employee benefit plan allegedly controlled by ERISA may be subject to garnishment by a judgment creditor. The trial court in its journal entry, after finding it had jurisdiction, stated:
Thus, the court found as a matter of fact and law that the initial establishment of the plans was a violation of fiduciary duty. The court went on to hold that the funds were subject to garnishment and should be paid to the receiver, subject to certain conditions pending appeal which are not relevant here. In making his conclusions the court relied upon the "trust pursuit rule" as espoused by the attorney for the receiver and as set forth in 76 Am.Jur.2d, Trusts § 251, wherein it is stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mendus v. Morgan & Associates, PC
...are not pre-empted. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 517, 112 S.Ct. 2608, 2618, 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992); Goben v. Barry, 237 Kan. 822, 703 P.2d 1378 (1985); Attocknie v. Carpenter Mfg., Inc., 1995 OK CIV APP 54, ¶ 10, 901 P.2d 221, 225. For example, the Act specifies venue but......
-
Planned Consumer Marketing, Inc. v. Coats and Clark, Inc.
...corporate misconduct involving excessive contributions to ERISA fund under Business Corporation Law § 720 not preempted]; Goben v. Barry, 237 Kan. 822, 703 P.2d 1378 [ERISA plan established in violation of State law of corporate fiduciary duty at a time when assets placed therein were subje......
-
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. American Red Ball Transit Co., Inc.
...result or consequence. 237 Kan. at 727, 704 P.2d 977; see Watkins v. H.O. Croley Granary, 555 F.Supp. 458, 460 (N.D.Ga.1982). In Goben v. Barry, 237 Kan. 822, Syl. p 3, 703 P.2d 1378 (1985), we said: "In making a determination of federal preemption, a court should examine those concerns emp......
-
Planned Consumer Marketing, Inc. v. Coats & Clark, Inc.
...by any appellate New York court. This exact question has been addressed in a decision of the Kansas Supreme Court in Goben v. Barry, supra, 237 Kan. 822, 703 P.2d 1378. In that case, a corporate official, Barry, in violation of his fiduciary duty under state law to his associate Goben, esta......
-
Pursuing a Breaching Trustee's Co-conspirators: Theory and Practice of Third Party Fiduciary Liability - November 2007 - Trust and Estate Law
...1946). 51. Penn, supra note 49 at 197 (emphasis added). 52. Knowles v. Canant, 51 So.2d 355 (Ala. 1951). 53. See, e.g., Goben v. Barry, 703 P.2d 1378 (Kan. 1985); City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, 80 Cal. Rptr.2d 329 (Cal.App.4th Dist. 1998). 54. Harris Trust & Sav. Bank v. Salomon Smith......