WSB Invs., LLC v. Pronghorn Dev. Co.

Citation269 Or.App. 342,344 P.3d 548
Decision Date25 February 2015
Docket NumberA153339.,11CV0180ST
PartiesWSB INVESTMENTS, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. PRONGHORN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and Pronghorn Golf Club, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, and Thomas C. Hix, an individual; Scott Denney, an individual; Scott Walley, an individual; Tiffany Clark, an individual; and Reece Fulgham, an individual, Defendants–Respondents, and Residence Club at Pronghorn Villas Condominiums Owners Association, Nominal Defendant–Respondent.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

269 Or.App. 342
344 P.3d 548

WSB INVESTMENTS, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Plaintiff–Appellant
v.
PRONGHORN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and Pronghorn Golf Club, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants
and
Thomas C. Hix, an individual; Scott Denney, an individual; Scott Walley, an individual; Tiffany Clark, an individual; and Reece Fulgham, an individual, Defendants–Respondents
and
Residence Club at Pronghorn Villas Condominiums Owners Association, Nominal Defendant–Respondent.

11CV0180ST
A153339.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted March 13, 2014.
Decided Feb. 25, 2015.


344 P.3d 551

Thomas A. Larkin, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were John Spencer Stewart, Tyler J. Storti, and Stewart Sokol & Gray, LLC.

Stephen F. Deatherage, Portland, argued the cause for respondent Scott Denney. With him on the brief was Bullivant Houser Bailey PC.

W. Michael Gillette, Portland, argued the cause for respondents Thomas C. Hix, Scott Walley, Reece Fulgham, Tiffany Clark, and Residence Club at Pronghorn Villas Condominiums Owners Association. With him on the brief were David A. Anderson, William J. Ohle, and Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C.

Before DUNCAN, Presiding Judge, and LAGESEN, Judge, and WOLLHEIM, Senior Judge.

Opinion

LAGESEN, J.

269 Or.App. 344

Plaintiff WSB Investments, LLC owns an interest in a timeshare unit at the Residence Club at Pronghorn Villas Condominiums and, as a consequence of that ownership, is a member of the associated nonprofit homeowners association, the Residence Club at Pronghorn Villas Condominiums Owners Association (the Res Club). When the timeshare development, and the management of it by its uncompensated board of directors—Thomas Hix, Scott Denney, Scott Walley, Tiffany Clark, and Reece Fulgham (defendants)—fell short of plaintiff's expectations, plaintiff sued defendants, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims.

We reverse in part, concluding that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants on some of plaintiff's allegations of breach of fiduciary duty.1 Specifically, we conclude that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence regarding some of those allegations to permit a reasonable factfinder to find that some of the directors were grossly negligent in failing to discharge their duties “[w]ith the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances” or “[i]n a manner the director reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation,” in violation of ORS 65.357,2

269 Or.App. 345

so as to render defendants

344 P.3d 552

subject to liability under ORS 65.369.3

I. BACKGROUND

A. Substantive Facts4

1. Defendant Hix develops a new resort, defendants are appointed to the board of directors of the homeowners association for the resort's timeshare complex, and plaintiff purchases a timeshare.

Defendant Hix is a real-estate developer. Hix decided to develop a destination resort in Central Oregon and, to that end, he and others formed High Desert Development Partners, LLC (High Desert Development)5 to purchase land in Deschutes County. In 2004, a subsidiary of High Desert Development, Pronghorn Development Company, LLC

269 Or.App. 346

(Pronghorn Development),6 broke ground on the 640–acre Pronghorn Resort (the resort). Hix envisioned the resort as a community of luxury timeshare units, condominiums, and custom villas, all situated along three premier golf courses and served by the Pronghorn Golf Club, LLC (the golf club).

As originally contemplated, the resort would have 16 buildings of timeshare units, among other types of accommodations. Each of the contemplated 16 buildings would contain four units, with each unit divided into 12 fractional interests, for a total of 768 fractional interests (16 buildings x 4 units/building x 12 fractional interests/unit). Each timeshare owner—that is, each owner of at least one fractional interest—would be a member of the homeowners association, the Res Club. The Res Club would be governed by a five-member board of directors and two documents: (1) the Declaration of Ownership and Fractional Plan for the Residence Club at Pronghorn Villas Condominiums (the Declaration), for which Pronghorn Development served as declarant; and (2) the Bylaws of the Residence Club at Pronghorn Villas Condominiums Owners' Association (the bylaws). Under the Declaration and bylaws, Pronghorn Development was to appoint the members of the initial five-member board of directors, but, at the first annual meeting of the Res Club, the Res Club members (including Pronghorn Development, as declarant) were to elect a new board.

In accordance with the Declaration and bylaws, Pronghorn Development appointed the members of the initial board of directors of the Res Club. Those members included Hix; Denney, an independent real-estate broker who had encouraged Hix to finance the development of the resort; Clark, vice president of sales and operations for High Desert Development; and Walley, who worked for Pronghorn Development in various roles, including as the company's director of finance.7 At all times relevant to this case, Hix served as president of the Res Club.

344 P.3d 553
269 Or.App. 347

By 2005, Pronghorn Development had completed four of the 16 anticipated timeshare buildings, for a total of 192 fractional interests. The same year, plaintiff purchased a 12/12 interest in Res Club Unit No. 208 for $1,626,000, and became a member of the Res Club as a result.

Around the time of plaintiff's purchase, Pronghorn Development began facing financial difficulties in connection with the resort. Those financial difficulties resulted in a number of different acts and omissions by Pronghorn Development and defendants over the next several years that affected the Res Club and its members and, ultimately, resulted in this legal action.

2. Hix and defendants, in contravention of the Declaration and without full disclosure to all Res Club members, agree to lease, rather than own, the common furnishings for the Res Club after Pronghorn Development is unable to purchase them.

Shortly before plaintiff's purchase of its timeshare, Hix and Pronghorn Development confronted the task of furnishing the timeshare buildings. The Declaration provided that the “common furnishings” of each unit, including all furniture, appliances, electronics, and other personal property, would be owned by the Res Club. At that point in time, however, defendants did not have the money available to purchase the requisite furnishings. As a result, common furnishings were not purchased for the timeshare units and conveyed to the Res Club as the Declaration contemplated. Instead, in order to obtain the money to purchase the furnishings, Hix, acting on behalf of a subsidiary of Pronghorn Development known as Pronghorn Investors, LLC (Pronghorn Investors), arranged to finance the purchase of the common furnishings for the Res Club through a capital lease arrangement with a third-party leasing company, Pacific Financial Company (Pacific). Under that arrangement, Pacific purchased the common furnishings from the vendors, and Pronghorn Investors agreed to lease the furnishings back from Pacific for a monthly fee. Rather than documenting the financing transaction as a loan from

269 Or.App. 348

Pacific to Pronghorn Investors, however, the parties documented it as a sale-leaseback agreement; that is, as the purchase of the common furnishings by Pacific from Pronghorn Investors, and Pronghorn Investors' subsequent agreement to lease back those furnishings.

Recognizing that the Declaration required that the common furnishings be owned by the Res Club and would not accommodate any kind of lease arrangement, Hix and Denney authorized an amendment to the Declaration in early 2006. The amendment stated that the common furnishings “will be owned or leased ” by the Res Club. (Emphasis added.) Although the amendment recited that it was adopted under the procedures spelled out in the Declaration, and had been approved by 75 percent of the membership of the Res Club, defendants did not, in fact, submit the amendment to the members for their approval as required by the plain terms of the Declaration.8

After Hix and Denney purported to amend the Declaration to allow the Res Club to lease, rather than own, the common furnishings, Hix, Denney, Walley, and Clark, acting on behalf of the Res Club, authorized Hix to sublease the furniture from Pronghorn Investors on December 7, 2006. Defendants did not disclose the lease arrangement with Pacific or the sublease from Pronghorn Investors to the nondeclarant members of the Res Club....

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Windmill Inns of Am., Inc. v. Cauvin
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • 2 October 2019
    ...for summary judgment, the record consists of documents submitted on all the motions. WSB Investments, LLC v. Pronghorn Devel. Co., LLC, 269 Or. App. 342, 355, 344 P.3d 548 (2015). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in t......
  • WSB Invs., LLC v. Pronghorn Dev. Co., 11CV0180ST; A153339.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • 25 February 2015
    ...344 P.3d 548WSB INVESTMENTS, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.PRONGHORN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and Pronghorn Golf Club, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants,andThomas C. Hix, an individual; Scott Denney......
  • Arrowood Indem. Co. v. Fasching
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • 17 June 2020
    ...on review includes the evidence submitted in connection with both summary judgment motions. WSB Investments, LLC v. Pronghorn Devel. Co., LLC , 269 Or. App. 342, 355, 344 P.3d 548 (2015) (citing Nixon v. Cascade Health Services, Inc. , 205 Or. App. 232, 237 n. 4, 134 P.3d 1027 (2006) ). And......
  • Linn Cnty. v. Brown
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • 1 May 2019
    ...‘consists of documents submitted in support of and in opposition to both motions.’ " WSB Investments, LLC v. Pronghorn Devel. Co., LLC , 269 Or. App. 342, 355, 344 P.3d 548 (2015) (quoting Citibank South Dakota v. Santoro, 210 Or. App. 344, 347, 150 P.3d 429 (2006), rev. den., 342 Or. 473, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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