Riddle v. Leuschner

Decision Date11 February 1959
Citation335 P.2d 107,51 Cal.2d 574
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesS. H. RIDDLE et al., Respondents, v. Richard D. LEUSCHNER et al., Appellants. Sac. 6745.

Robert D. Carter, Modesto, for appellants.

Mellis & Stockton and Cleveland J. Stockton, Modesto, for respondents.

GIBSON, Chief Justice.

S. H. Riddle commenced this action for declaratory and other relief against Yosemite Creek Company, Kadota Creek Company, and most of the shareholders, officers and directors of the two companies, both of which were California corporations. He was a creditor of Yosemite and sought to hold the other defendants for the amount due from Yosemite, alleging that each of the corporations was the alter ego of the individual defendants. Subsequently the trial court permitted the joinder as plaintiffs of a number of other creditors of Yosemite who sought similar relief.

During the course of the suit the action was dismissed as to all individual defendants except Richard D. Leuschner, Sr., Elizabeth F. Leuschner, his wife, and Richard D. Leuschner, Jr., his son. Judgment was rendered against the two corporations and the Leuschners jointly and severally, and they appealed. The appeal was dismissed as to the two corporations, and the matter is now before us with respect only to the Leuschners. 1

The corporations were organized by the Leuschner family in 1949. Mrs. Leuschner was issued 510 shares of Yosemite's stock, and in 1951 she transferred half of them to Leuschner, Jr., her stepson, and the other half to Elizabeth Leuschner Baker, her stepdaughter. Mrs. Leuschner acquired another share, and during the period when plaintiffs' claims arose in 1952 and 1953 the stock ownership of that corporation was as follows: Mrs. Leuschner, one share; Leuschner, Jr., 268 shares; Elizabeth Baker, 257 shares; and various employees, eight shares. Leuschner, Jr., and Mrs. Baker each owned one-third of the shares of Kadota, and the other third was owned by Jeannette and Homer Andre, the daughter and son-in-law of Mrs. Leuschner. Leuschner, Sr., held no shares in either corporation.

In 1952 and 1953 Leuschner, Sr., was the president of Yosemite and the assistant treasurer of Kadota, and he was active in the management of the business of both corporations. Leuschner, Jr., was the vice-president and treasurer of Yosemite and the president of Kadota. Salaries of $600 a month and $75 a week were paid to Leuschner, Sr., and his son, respectively, first by Yosemite and later by Kadota. Mrs. Leuschner was secretary of Yosemite, and the three of them were also directors of both corporations. The other officers and directors of the corporations were Elizabeth Baker and her husband, who, like Jeannette and Homer Andre, were not made defendants in this action. It thus appears that during the period important for this case the directors of the corporations were identical and that all of the stock of Kadota and practically all the shares of Yosemite were held by persons who were related by blood or marriage.

In the years from 1949 to 1953 each of the corporations held one shareholders' meeting. Neither of them held any regular meetings of their directors, but Yosemite's directors had four special meetings, and Kadota's had two. The two corporations occupied the same offices, used the same furniture and files, and retained the same bookkeeper and attorneys during considerable portions of the time between 1949 and 1954.

The three Leuschners entered into a large number of personal transactions with the corporations. On one occasion in 1949, while Mrs. Leuschner was secretary and a director of Yosemite, she borrowed about $12,000 from the corporation. At various times the Leuschners loaned their personal funds to the corporations. At least nine notes calling for 8% interest and totaling $11,700 were given to Leuschner, Jr., by Yosemite, and 12 notes at the same interest totaling $33,575 were given to him by Kadota. Mrs. Leuschner made a number of loans to Yosemite, and she took at least six notes totaling $10,000 at 8% from Kadota. Leuschner, Sr., also made similar loans. There was no specific, formal approval by directors or stockholders of these loans.

On a number of occasions Leuschner, Jr., and Mrs. Leuschner purchased equipment in their own names and rented it to the corporations. When a seller was about to repossess from Kadota a year-old machine sold to Kadota for $1,800, Leuschner, Jr., paid the balance due of about $200, obtained title and thereafter leased the machine to Kadota. Similarly he purchased from a third party a fork lift truck, which he rented to Yosemite for $300 a month, and he purchased another machine, which was being used by Yosemite, and leased it to the corporation at a monthly rental of $200. Mrs. Leuschner purchased machinery from both corporations and leased some of it to Kadota. She also participated with Leuschner, Jr., in acquiring title to certain equipment by a complicated transaction whereby they furnished money to enable Yosemite to pay off a chattel mortgage on a machine which was then traded to a third party for the equipment to which she and her stepson obtained title. The result of the transaction, apparently, was that Yosemite lost title to the mortgaged machine and got nothing in return.

In many cases the documents which evidence the transactions were executed by a member of the family both in his individual capacity and as one of the officers of the corporation who signed on its behalf. For example, between May 1953 and June 1954, Leuschner, Jr., as president of Kadota, with his father as assistant secretary, executed several bills of sale of various items of machinery and equipment to himself as an individual. The minutes do not show any prior authorization or approval of any of the personal transactions by the directors or stockholders of either corporation, although there was a general resolution adopted by the stockholders of Yosemite approving all the acts of the officers and directors during the years 1950, 1951 and 1952, and there were two similar resolutions by the directors ratifying the acts of Yosemite during the years 1949, 1950 and 1951. There does not appear to have been any similar resolution by the directors of Kadota, but there is a resolution by its stockholders approving all acts of the corporation from the date of incorporation to January 1953.

Yosemite was in the business of processing fruits and vegetables. The enterprise was commenced in 1949 and was fairly extensive, each year grossing over $2,000,000 and paying almost $900,000 to growers for their produce. Kadota leased and operated farms in 1949 and 1950, but it ceased operations in the latter year and remained dormant until early in 1953. At that time Yosemite was involved in litigation with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and the Smith Processing Company, neither of which are plaintiffs herein, and its operations were severely hampered by attachments of its bank accounts and by seizures of some of its assets. According to Leuschner, Sr., Yosemite had outstanding contracts committing it to purchase close to a million dollars of produce from growers and to sell processed foods to various companies, but because of the attachments and seizures it was unable to operate.

On January 2, 1953, Yosemite transferred some machinery to Kadota and assigned to it a contract with a food company for the packing of spinach, and Kadota agreed to perform the contract. The remainder of Yosemite's equipment and machinery was assigned to Kadota on April 10, 1953. There was testimony by Leuschner, Sr., and his son that there was a written agreement by which Kadota undertook to perform Yosemite's contracts, but no copy of the asserted agreement could be found. According to Leuschner, Sr., Kadota supplied labor and materials, processed the produce, sold it, collected for the sales, and transferred 'the difference in funds on account' to Yosemite, which paid the money to its growers and field men. A large number of checks payable to Yosemite were endorsed in favor of Kadota and deposited to the latter's account without passing through Yosemite's bank account. Yosemite continued to contract with growers for the purchase of produce during 1953. It did not pay the growers in full, and, because of this failure, its processing license from the Department of Agriculture was revoked in January of 1954. Apparently Kadota ceased operations sometime in 1954.

Yosemite's financial statement showed that the corporation had an excess of 'current liabilities' over assets of $45,461.14 as of June 30, 1952, and of $156,114.78 on June 30, 1953. Kadota's 'current liabilities' exceeded its assets by $17,116.34 on April 30, 1953, and by $62,890.42 on June 30, of that year.

The court found and concluded that Yosemite was indebted to plaintiffs under contracts entered into in 1952 and 1953, that Yosemite and Kadota were at all times completely controlled, dominated, managed and operated by the three Leuschners, that the corporations were such in name only and were mere fictions employed by the Leuschners, that the assets of Yosemite were intermingled with the assets of Kadota to suit the convenience of the Leuschners and to assist them in evading payment of their obligations, that after such intermingling the two corporations were not separate entities but were a single entity operating as Kadota, that there was no individuality or separateness insofar as the corporations and the Leuschners are concerned, and that each of the corporations was the alter ego of the Leuschners.

In Automotriz Del Golfo De California S. A. De C V. v. Resnick, 47 Cal.2d 792, 796, 306 P.2d 1, 3, we stated that the two requirements for disregard of corporate entity are '(1) that there be such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist and (2) that, if the acts are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 cases
  • Las Palmas Associates v. Las Palmas Center Associates
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 5 d2 Novembro d2 1991
    ...at the time the 1982 lease guaranties were created. We find the contention meritless. Hahn, Inc. relies on Riddle v. Leuschner (1959) 51 Cal.2d 574, 335 P.2d 107. There, the California Supreme Court reversed a judgment, based on an alter ego theory, against a manager of businesses owned by ......
  • United States v. Sterling Centrecorp Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 24 d1 Junho d1 2013
    ...representation of corporate identity in communications with outside parties. See Findings 279–280. See also S.H. Riddle v. Leuschner, 51 Cal.2d 574, 581, 335 P.2d 107 (1959) (“normal corporate procedures” include following corporate formalities such as holding meetings and keeping records);......
  • Tatung Co. v. Shu Tze Hsu
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • 14 d1 Novembro d1 2016
    ...a fraud or an injustice." Id. Even owning a single share was enough "ownership" to find alter ego liability in Riddle v. Leuschner , 51 Cal.2d 574, 335 P.2d 107, 111 (1959). Additionally, the California Supreme Court has held that "[t]he equitable owners of a corporation ... are personally ......
  • John Buckley & Mama Gramm's Bakery, Inc. v. Abuzir
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 10 d4 Abril d4 2014
    ...ownership and interest.” Firstmark Capital Corp. v. Hempel Financial Corp., 859 F.2d 92, 94 (9th Cir.1988) (citing Riddle v. Leuschner, 51 Cal.2d 574, 335 P.2d 107, 111 (1959)); see also Securities and Exchange Commission v. Hickey, 322 F.3d 1123, 1130 (9th Cir.2003) (“an individual must ow......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Corporations
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Private Placement Life Insurance & Other Advanced Asset Protection Strategies - with Forms & Diagrams Part II. Other advanced asset protection strategies
    • 28 d4 Abril d4 2022
    ...will be treated as the owner of stock if the apparent owner is a straw person set up to hold the debtor’s stock. [ Riddle v. Leuschner, 51 Cal. 2d 574, 580-581 (1959).] §8:54 Protection Against Piercing Officers and directors who would be injured by a piercing of the corporate veil can requ......
  • Strategic Planning
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Private Placement Life Insurance & Other Advanced Asset Protection Strategies - with Forms & Diagrams Part II. Other advanced asset protection strategies
    • 28 d4 Abril d4 2022
    ...of a corporation, liable for the debts and obligations of that corporation by applying the alter ego doctrine. [See Riddle v. Leuschner, 51 Cal. 2d 574 (1959) (case involved two corporations; the court found that neither corporation held regular director’s meetings, both occupied the same o......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT