Nuss v. Sabad

• Decision Date: 30 September 2013
• Docket Number: No. 7:10–CV–0279 (LEK/TWD).,7:10–CV–0279 (LEK/TWD).
• Citation: 976 F.Supp.2d 231
• Parties: Barbara NUSS, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Robert A. Nuss, Plaintiffs, v. Joseph William SABAD and Vicki Ann Sabad, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

976 F.Supp.2d 231

Barbara NUSS, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Robert A. Nuss, Plaintiffs,

v.Joseph William SABAD and Vicki Ann Sabad, Defendants.

No. 7:10–CV–0279 (LEK/TWD).

United States District Court,

N.D. New York.

Sept. 30, 2013.

Barry R. Fischer, The Barry Fischer Law Firm, LLC, New York, NY, Marc C. Pugliese, Roger S. Kobert, Weiss, Serota Law Firm, Coral Gables, FL, for Plaintiffs.

David M. Lenney, Office of David M. Lenney, Clifton Park, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM–DECISION and ORDER

LAWRENCE E. KAHN, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Barbara Nuss (“Barbara”) and the Estate of Robert A. Nuss (“Robert”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) commenced this action against Defendants Joseph William Sabad (“Joseph”) and Vicki Ann Sabad (“Vicki”) (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging several causes of action arising from an arrangement to acquire land in Mexico. See generally Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). Currently pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 50 (“Motion”). For the following reasons, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.

II. BACKGROUND

The facts of this case are widely disputed, but the parties agree about the following: Plaintiffs and Defendants first met sometime in late 2002 or early 2003. Dkt Nos. 50–29 (“SMF”) ¶ 2; 85 (“SMF Response”) ¶ 1. In 2003, they entered into an arrangement to acquire land in Mexico. SMF ¶¶ 2–5; SMF Resp. ¶¶ 2–5. In March 2003, Plaintiffs wired $135,000 to Defendants' bank account in New York. SMF ¶ 8; SMF Resp. ¶ 8. A Mexican corporation was formed in that same month as a vehicle for acquiring the Mexican property, and Robert, Barbara, Joseph, and Vicki each received 25% of the shares. SMF ¶¶ 5–7; SMF Resp. ¶¶ 5–7. Following the corporation's acquisition of the property, Plaintiffs began constructing a vacation home on part of the parcel, which they eventually lived in. SMF ¶ 14; SMF Resp. ¶ 12. Defendants began constructing some smaller structures, including a guard house. SMF ¶ 12; SMF Resp. ¶¶ 12, 14. In 2006 or 2007, a disagreement arose between the parties as to the future use of the land. SMF ¶¶ 14–17; SMF Resp. ¶ 14. Later that year, at a shareholders' meeting of the corporation that Plaintiffs did not attend, Defendants voted to issue themselves additional shares, thereby diluting Plaintiffs' interest in the property. SMF ¶¶ 17–18; SMF Resp. at 10–11.

A. The Arrangement

The circumstances under which the parties met each other and learned of the Mexican beachfront property they eventually acquired (the “Property”) are disputed. According to Plaintiffs, Robert met Joseph before either knew of the Property. SMF Resp. ¶¶ 1–2. Robert later invited Defendants to meet his wife, Barbara. Dkt. No. 84–1 (“Nuss Deposition”) at 27–28. Robert Nuss and Joseph Sabad began jointly searching for Mexican real estate to purchase in 2002. SMF Resp. ¶ 1. Together they viewed at least two properties before deciding to purchase the Property. Id. Robert and Joseph first saw the Property in December 2002. Id. ¶ 2. Robert and Barbara saw the Property together at the beginning of 2003. SMF Resp. ¶ 2.

Defendants claim to have found the Property on their own, and to have negotiated its purchase and made a down payment in February 2003. SMF ¶ 1. In Defendants' version of events, Plaintiffs learned of the Property later, in March 2003, when Joseph pointed it out to Robert while they were driving home from a golf outing. Id. ¶ 2.

At the time of acquisition, the parties' stated intentions were to use the property to construct separate private vacation homes. SMF ¶ 4; SMF Resp. ¶ 4.¹ They planned to share the expenses of buying, developing, and maintaining the land on a “dollar-for-dollar basis.” SMF ¶ 3; SMF Resp. ¶ 3.

The nature of the parties' relationship during this early period is disputed. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants were friendly and gained Plaintiffs' trust through their kind words and deeds. SMF Resp. ¶ 1; Nuss Dep. at 150–51. Defendants state that, prior to the formation of the corporation, they “barely knew” Defendants and were merely acquaintances, not friends. Reply Decl. ¶¶ 3, 15.

B. Acquisition of the Property and Formation of the Corporation (“BRJV”)

On March 26, 2003, Plaintiffs wired $135,000 from their Salomon Smith Barney account to Defendants' NBT Bank account in New York. SMF ¶ 8; SMF Resp. ¶ 8; Dkt. No. 15–3, Ex. A. The purchase price of the property was 1,740,000 pesos, equivalent to $163,500. SMF ¶ 9; SMF Resp. ¶ 9. As part of the arrangement for acquiring the property, a Mexican corporation was formed on March 27, 2003. SMF ¶ 5; SMF Resp. ¶ 5. The corporation was named BRJV (the first initials of the four shareholders). SMF ¶ 5; SMF Resp. ¶ 5; Dkt. No. 86 (“Response”) at 2 n. 1.

The legal documents concerning the acquisition of the land and the formation of BRJV were drafted by a Mexican attorney/notary named Lomeli. Reply Decl. ¶ 2. Defendants state that they met Lomeli for the first time on February 7, 2003, when they made the deposit on the land. Id.; Dkt. No. 90–1 (“Deposit Receipt”). Plaintiffs claim that Defendants had sole control over the creation and formation of BRJV and that they completely trusted Defendants in this process. SMF Resp. ¶ 5.

None of the parties is fluent in Spanish, although Plaintiffs believed that Joseph Sabad had a limited ability to read Spanish. Reply Decl. ¶ 8; Nuss Dep. at 19, 153–54.

BRJV was formed under the Mexican Ley General de Sociedades Mercantiles, or General Law of Commercial Companies (“GLCC”). Compl. Ex. A (“BRJV Constitution”); SMF Resp. at 9; Reply Decl. ¶ 9. The GLCC requires that increases in or reductions of the Capital Stock of a company can occur only at a General Extraordinary Meeting, rather than at a General Ordinary Meeting. GLCC art. 182; SMF Resp. at 9–10. At least three-fourths of the Capital Stock must be represented at an Extraordinary General Meeting, unless the by-laws provide for a higher proportion. GLCC art. 190; SMF Resp. at 9. The BRJV Constitution provided that any increase or decrease of “the minimum fixed Capital” had to be resolved at a General Extraordinary Meeting, but an increase or decrease of “Variable Capital” could be resolved at a General Ordinary Meeting. BRJV Const. cls. 9, 23; SMF Resp. at 10. Defendants state that they did not instruct Lomeli to place any provision into the Constitution other than the parties' names, addresses, number of shares, and subscription price. Reply Decl. ¶ 8.

C. Improvements to the Property

Following the formation of BRJV and the acquisition of the Property, Robert Nuss, acting on behalf of BRJV, sought building permits for the two vacation homes. SMF ¶ 10; SMF Resp. ¶ 10. The permits were paid for with BRJV funds. SMF ¶¶ 10–11; SMF Resp. ¶¶ 10–11. Joseph, acting as President of BRJV, directed the construction of certain improvements to the land, such as roads, electrical lines, water holding tanks, septic systems, roads, a guard house, and a palapa/chickee hut. SMF ¶ 12; SMF Resp. ¶ 12. Robert Nuss knew about these activities and approved them through emails to Joseph Sabad. SMF ¶ 13; SMF Resp. ¶ 13. Plaintiffs built a beachfront vacation home on the Property, which they contend cost $320,000 and was paid for by them, not BRJV. SMF ¶ 4; SMF Resp. ¶ 12.

In 2006, Defendants initiated discussions to split the Property. SMF ¶ 14; Dkt No. 50–1 (“Defendants' First Declaration”) ¶¶ 21–24. Plaintiffs would own “almost half” the property through a new corporation, including the part where they had built their house. SMF ¶ 14; Defs.' First Decl. ¶¶ 21–24; Nuss Dep. at 110. Defendants would own the rest of the Property through BRJV, of which they would be the sole owners. SMF ¶ 14; Defs.' First Decl. ¶¶ 21–24.

D. The January Meeting

A BRJV corporate board meeting was held in January 2007. SMF ¶ 17; Resp. ¶ 14. At that meeting, the parties advanced differing proposals as to the future of the Property. SMF ¶ 17; SMF Resp. ¶ 14. Defendants proposed developing the land into condominiums. SMF ¶ 17; SMF Resp. ¶ 14. Plaintiffs state that the first time they heard of this proposal was at the January meeting. SMF Resp. ¶ 14. Plaintiffs opposed that proposal and advanced their own proposal to divide the property, which Defendants opposed. SMF ¶ 17. Due to this deadlock, no action could be taken by BRJV. See SMF ¶ 17; Defs.' First Decl. ¶ ¶ 28–29.

E. The September Meeting

On September 18, 2007, a BRJV shareholders meeting was held. SMF Resp. ¶ 4; Reply Decl. ¶ 12. A notice of the meeting was published in a Spanish-language Mexican newspaper. Reply Decl. ¶ 12; SMF Resp. ¶ 14. Plaintiffs state that this form of notice was inconsistent with Defendants' previous practice of verbally notifying them of upcoming meetings. SMF Resp. ¶ 14. Defendants were present at the meeting; Plaintiffs were not. SMF ¶ 4; Reply Decl. ¶ 12. At the meeting, Defendants voted to issue themselves each 5000 new shares. As a result, following that meeting, Defendants together owned 10,500 shares of BRJV stock, while Plaintiffs together owned 500 shares. SMF Resp. at 10–11; Reply Decl. ¶¶ 12–13. At that meeting, Defendants determined that BRJV owed them a debt of $160,000. Reply Decl. ¶ 12. This debt was the consideration for the new shares. SMF Resp. at 11; Reply Decl. ¶ 12.

F. Legal Proceedings in Mexico

In 2007, the parties initiated various legal proceedings against each other involving BRJV and the Property. Defendants state that these proceedings began in January 2007 and included immigration complaints seeking Defendants' deportation from Mexico. SMF ¶ 18; Reply Decl. ¶ 12; Dkt No. 80 (“Response to Antisuit Injunction Request”) at 1–2. Plaintiffs admit initiating legal proceedings, but state that they did so to prevent Defendants from “continuing their fraud,” “misappropriating Plaintiffs' property,” and interfering with Plaintiffs' quiet enjoyment of their house in Mexico through death threats, physical violence,...