Man O War Restaurants, Inc. v. Martin
| Decision Date | 29 August 1996 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 95-SC-235-D,95-SC-746-DG,s. 95-SC-235-D |
| Citation | 932 S.W.2d 366 |
| Parties | MAN O WAR RESTAURANTS, INC., Appellant, v. John MARTIN, Jr., Appellee. John MARTIN, Jr., Cross-Appellant, v. MAN O WAR RESTAURANTS, INC., Cross-Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Gregory P. Parsons, D. Chad McCoy, Lloyd C. Chatfield, II, Stites & Harbison, Lexington, KY, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
William C. Jacobs, H. Brett Stonecipher, Lexington, KY, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
At issue here is the enforceability of a contract provision by which a corporate shareholder, who was also an employee of the corporation, was required upon termination of his employment to return his stock for the sum he originally paid. The trial court enforced the contract provision on grounds that the parties enjoyed broad freedom of contract and that no bad faith was shown in process of termination of the employment. The Court of Appeals reversed on the basis of public policy against forfeiture. In its view, the contract provision which required return of the stock operated as a forfeiture or a penalty and was thus unenforceable. We granted discretionary review as this issue appears to be of first impression in this jurisdiction.
When John Martin, Jr., was hired as manager of appellant's Sizzler Restaurant, he was permitted to purchase 25% of the stock in the corporation for the sum of $1,000. However, according to the terms of his five-year employment contract, Martin was required to return the stock in exchange for the amount he paid if his employment was terminated during the five-year term. Otherwise Martin's ownership of the stock was unrestricted. As a member of the board of directors, Martin participated in stock dividends, and was at liberty to sell his stock for whatever sum the market would have produced. Less than three years after the contract was entered into, Martin's employment was terminated and demand was made for return of the stock. This litigation followed.
A number of subsidiary issues and arguments have been raised which tend to distract from our analysis. Variously, contentions are made that the purchase price was a nominal price; that other shareholders, by virtue of their wealth, incurred greater financial risk than Martin; that Martin lacked the financial capability to obtain a franchise on his own; and that the stock was "given" for the purpose of performance motivation. It had also been suggested that appellant had a powerful incentive to terminate Martin's employment and thereby acquire stock of a substantial value for a modest sum; or that the stock was sold at a reduced price in lieu of greater compensation. While some or all of these factors may have been present, they are not reflected in the parties' contract or in the trial court's relevant findings of fact.
Under the contract, the Board of Directors was authorized to terminate appellee's employment for any reasonable cause. Martin sued challenging the termination of his employment and contended that appellant was without sufficient cause to terminate. From the evidence the trial court held otherwise. As its findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, we are bound thereby. CR 52.01. For purposes of this analysis, we fully accept that sufficient cause was shown for Martin's termination and that it was not in bad faith or for the purpose of improperly obtaining his stock. While fully accepting that appellee was rightfully terminated under paragraph nine of the employment contract, we must nevertheless determine whether the stock repurchase provision of paragraph eleven is enforceable. In our view, the fact of appellee's "for cause" termination is not decisive.
In support of its decision to enforce the stock return provision, the trial court found that appellant's executive officer, Robert Langley, had a policy to have franchise managers acquire an ownership interest. In this vein the trial court also found facts such as appellee's having earned more from this employment than from previous employment. Frankly, we fail to see how Langley's business policy or appellee's greater earnings with this employer has anything to do with the enforceability of the stock surrender provision. It could be argued that Langley's policy should be construed in appellee's favor as Langley was serving his own purpose by vesting appellee with stock ownership.
Rather than risk being led astray by the subtleties and nuances urged by the parties, we feel greater confidence if our focus is limited to the certain facts without gloss or adornment. The facts are that for valuable consideration, appellee purchased stock in the appellant corporation. A provision of the contract provided that upon termination of appellee's employment by appellant, appellee would be required to return the stock which he had purchased in exchange for the sum originally paid. Whether a contract provision which compels the transfer of property without regard to its value or without resort to a formula for equitable compensation is enforceable under Kentucky law is the question we must answer.
Meticulously we have examined the view expressed on this issue by the Court of Appeals. In an opinion reversing by Judge Schroeder with which Chief Judge Lester and Judge Gardner concurred, the court said:
The first issue raised by Martin, which is one of first impression in Kentucky, is that the stock return provision of the Agreement operated as a forfeiture or penalty for breach of a contract and, therefore, is unenforceable. We agree. Martin is both a minority stockholder and he was also an employee. Although damages for breach of a contract may be liquidated in agreements, terms fixing unreasonably large liquidated damages are unenforceable as against public policy. Mattingly Bridge Co., Inc. v. Holloway & Son Const. Co., Inc., Ky., 694 S.W.2d 702 (1985). Terms of the Agreement which require a return of the stock at the price paid, without interest or appreciation, is to us a form of unreasonably excessive liquidated damages. In our view, the only way the stock return provision in the employment contract can be upheld is if Martin is paid book value or fair market value for the stock. See Lewis v. H.P. Hood & Sons, 331 Mass. 670, 121 N.E.2d 850 (1954). To hold otherwise would require Martin to forfeit the enhanced value of his stock. Equity detests forfeiture provisions and frequently will find them unenforceable. Sebastian v. Floyd, Ky., 585 S.W.2d 381 (1979); C.I.T. Corp. v. Thompson, 293 Ky. 637, 169 S.W.2d 820 (1943).
We fully agree with this view and adopt it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baur v. Baur Farms, Inc.
...as recognized in Wingfield v. Contech Constr. Prods., Inc., 83 Ark. App. 16, 115 S.W.3d 336, 341 (2003); cf. Man O War Rests., Inc. v. Martin, 932 S.W.2d 366, 368 (Ky.1996) (explaining provision in employment contract requiring employee to sell stock back to the corporation for price origin......
-
G.D. Deal Holdings, Inc. v. Baker Energy, Inc.
...705, 706 (Ky.1973); Mattingly Bridge Co. v. Holloway & Son Construction Co., 694 S.W.2d 702, 706 (Ky.1985); Man O War Restaurants, Inc. v. Martin, 932 S.W.2d 366, 369 (Ky.1996). Further, the actual damages must be difficult to ascertain. Id. If the stated amount is substantially higher than......
-
Salyersville National Bank v. Bailey (In re Bailey)
...contracts which have been negotiated by parties,” but occasionally “feel compelled ... to take such a step.” Man O War Restaurants, Inc. v. Martin, 932 S.W.2d 366, 368 (Ky.1996). One such occasion is when both parties at the time of contracting are mistaken as to a “material fact,” one “tha......
-
Coyle v. Schwartz, No. 2002-CA-001287-MR (Ky. App. 3/26/2004), 2002-CA-001287-MR.
...court erred by finding that the stock-valuation provision was unenforceable as a penalty. Specifically, Coyle claims that Man O' War Restaurants, Inc. v. Martin,18 the case relied upon by the trial court in ruling that the stock-valuation provision unenforceable, is distinguishable from the......