Enea

Enea v. Superior Court

Good Law
132 Cal. App. 4th 1559·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1546·2005 Daily Journal DAR 11892·34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 513·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8767
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 2005H027511California3,589 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rushing, J.

Plaintiff Benny Enea brought this petition to set aside an order of respondent court summarily adjudicating his cause of action against his former partners, defendants William Daniels and Claudia Daniels, for breaches of fiduciary duties consisting primarily of renting partnership property to themselves at less than its fair market value. The trial court ruled that, as a matter of law, no such claim could be predicated on such conduct in the absence of an agreement requiring fair market rents. We hold that this was error; the fiduciary duties imposed on partners by operation of law unquestionably bar them from conferring such benefits upon themselves at the partnership’s expense. Accordingly, we will direct respondent court to set aside its order and deny the motion.

Background

For purposes of this analysis we largely accept the historical background recited in defendants’ opposition to the petition, without intending to conclude any issue of fact that may arise in further proceedings. Defendants state that in 1980, they and other family members formed a general partnership known as 3-D. The partnership’s sole asset was a building that had been converted from a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.