Magna Associates v. Torgrove, 84-K-155.
Decision Date | 23 May 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 84-K-155.,84-K-155. |
Citation | 585 F. Supp. 585 |
Parties | MAGNA ASSOCIATES, a Limited Partnership by Ludwig Bravmann, Lou Green and Herbert Wasserman, Limited Partners, and Ludwig Bravmann, Lou Green and Herbert Wasserman, Individually and as Limited Partners of Magna Associates, a Limited Partnership Suing on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Howard H. TORGROVE, Individually and as General Partner of Magna Associates, a Limited Partnership. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
Dale Tooley, Phillip D. Barber, Welborn, Dufford, Brown & Tooley, Denver, Colo., Jeffrey T. Golenbeok, David J. Eiseman, Golenbeok, Eiseman, Assor & Bell, New York City, for plaintiffs.
A. Craig Fleishman, Carolyn Gruber, Atler, Zall & Haligman, Englewood, Colo., Peter N. Wang, Friedman & Gass, New York City, for defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
Before me in this diversity case is defendant's motion to dismiss. Torgrove argues convincingly that some or all of the claims for relief are barred by the appropriate statutes of limitations. For the reasons set out below, I agree and order the complaint dismissed.
Magna, a limited partnership organized under Colorado law, was formed in 1968 to acquire a building located in Denver, Colorado known as Brooks Towers. At present, there are a total of 53 limited partners, most of whom live in New York City. Torgrove and David Warshaw, an attorney, became general partners to the venture. Torgrove also acted as supervisory managing agent, in which capacity he received $250.00 per month in exchange for what he admits were perfunctory and limited duties.
Torgrove's efforts were successful. He turned an insolvent property into one which is worth, by his estimate, $21,000,000. Torgrove and some of the limited partners had lengthy discussions from 1974 to 1976 in an effort to negotiate an appropriate and fair contract for his services. The result was a Management Agreement, signed by Torgrove on October 21, 1977, which is the focus of this litigation. As the complaint puts it:
The Management Agreement provides that defendant Torgrove shall receive as compensation for managing the building a "Management Fee" equal to a minimum of 4% of the "Gross Rental Receipts", as defined, plus in certain circumstances, an additional 1% of Gross Rental Receipts; and as a "Supplemental Management Fee", 10% of Brooks Towers' positive cash flow for each calendar year after 1975, plus 10% of the first $1 million of sales or refinancing proceeds net of expenses and certain other specified deductions, 20% of all such additional proceeds up to $2 million, and 25% of all such proceeds in excess of $2 million.
David Warshaw, Torgrove's co-general partner, and Warshaw's law firm, represented and negotiated the management agreement on behalf of the limited partners. As part of that representation, Warshaw advised the limited partners by letter of the salient terms of the management agreement and solicited consent forms approving it. 98% of the limited partners, including plaintiffs Lou Green and Ludwig Bravmann, signed the consent forms approving the management agreement.
Plaintiffs originally filed this complaint in the Supreme Court in New York City. Torgrove removed the case to federal district court and then convinced Judge Duffy of that court to transfer the case to me on December 7, 1983.
The complaint makes four claims for relief, sounding in fraud, breach of fiduciary obligation and, if I am to believe plaintiffs, contract. The critical allegations in the complaint are that:
Complaint at paragraphs 21, 22, 28. Plaintiffs also allege that Torgrove fraudulently obtained the consents of 1977 from the limited partners by using his position as general partner to keep the limited partners from "fairly assessing alternative methods of obtaining the requisite management services...." Complaint at paragraphs 52 and 29.
Defendant's motion to dismiss is predicated upon the five and three year statutes of limitation pertinent to breaches of fiduciary obligation and fraud. See Colo.Rev. Stat. §§ 13-80-114 and 13-80-109 (1973). Torgrove argues that the statutes began to run on the date of the execution of the management agreement, October 21, 1977, thereby cutting off any claims for breach of fiduciary obligation in October, 1982. He also argues that any claims based upon a fraudulently obtained consent were cut off in October, 1980, three years after Torgrove signed the management agreement.
In arguing that they have an action in contract as well as one for breach of a fiduciary duty, plaintiffs claim that the partnership agreement forbids Torgrove from receiving any compensation in excess of the $250 per month specified at paragraph 11. Since ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bauers v. City of Lincoln
...maintain an action and recover for breaches which occurred within the statute of limitations period). See, also, Magna Associates v. Torgrove, 585 F.Supp. 585 (D.Colo.1984) (cause of action arises from each time an installment becomes due); Application of Church, 833 P.2d 813 (Colo.App.1992......
-
Bennett Bear Creek Farm Water and Sanitation Dist. v. City and County of Denver, s. 93CA1395
...were then known, the statutory period of limitations commenced immediately, without regard to future conduct. See Magna Associates v. Torgrove, 585 F.Supp. 585 (D.Colo.1984); Note, Developments in the Law: Statutes of Limitations, 63 Harv.L.Rev. 1177 (1950); see also Abrams v. Public Servic......
-
Church, Application of, 90CA2149
...foreclosure proceeding predicated upon the underlying note. As support for its conclusion, the trial court cited Magna Associates v. Torgrove, 585 F.Supp. 585 (D.Colo.1984) for the proposition that "where a debt is payable in installments, the statute of limitations runs against each instal......
-
The Fiduciary Duties of General Partners
...117 S.E.2d 650 (1961); Boxill v. Boxill, 201 M. 386, 391, 111 N.Y.S.2d 33, 37-8 (Sup.Ct. 1952). 14. E.g., Magna Associates v. Torgrove, 585 F.Supp. 585 (D.Colo. 1984) [applying Colorado RULPA]; Fulton v. Baxter, Okla., 596 P.2d 540 (1979). 15. E.g., Truman v. Martin, 212 Neb. 52, 321 N.W.2d......
-
Tort Reform's Impact on Contract Law
...1984). 27. Association of Owners, Satellite Apartment, Inc. v. Otte, 38 Colo.App. 12, 550 P.2d 894 (1976); Magna Associates v. Torgrove, 585 F.Supp. 585 (D.Colo. 1984). Jones v. Harding Glass Co., Inc. 44 Colo.App. 437, 619 P.2d 777 (1980), vacated, 640 P.2d 1123, specifically involved puni......
-
Finding the Right Limitations Period for New Intentional Torts
...for "assault, assault and battery, maiming, false imprisonment, malicious arrest, or menace...." 14. Magna Associates v. Torgrove, 585 F.Supp. 585 (D.Colo. 1984); Maes v. Tuttoilmondo, 502 P.2d 427 (Colo.App. 1972). 15. Supra, note 13. 16. Id. at 428. 17. Rugg, supra, note 1. 18. Restatemen......