Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Agreement Defects

Agreement Defects

Ratings: (0)|Views: 29|Likes:
Published by WatsonFraud9892
Agreement was totally Unenforcable
Agreement was totally Unenforcable

More info:

Published by: WatsonFraud9892 on Apr 08, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





EXHIBIT CLegal Analysis of the May 27
AgreementThe defendants¶ lawyer Kaelin said on March 5, 2010 that defendants µintention to evict plaintiff from his home is so that both of his properties can be sold (occupies approximately four acres).Further stating that it is a matter of their legal right to control the sale and their only obligation to plaintiffis to give him a share of the net equity. Yet, stating that no approximate amount can bedetermined at this time or before the final figures are calculated after the properties are sold.However, the defendants have been going by the µagreement¶ and the charter of the LLCsdirecting conveyance of only 50 % that by corporate law provides equal rights of decision. Yet,defendants have completely shut out plaintiff from exercising any rights or privileges of havingan interest in the properties.Even though the law states both parties are required to agree todetermine any business matters involving the property, yetdefendants¶evicted plaintiff fromoccupancy of his home and looted his personal property. In addiction defendants haveindependently extracted its rental revenue for their exclusive benefit in disregard to separatewritten contractual agreements designating rental revenues, and independently pursued its sale, but the law says:
´Connecticut corporation law confers the power to sell and convey the realproperty of a corporation on its board of directors, and in the absence of express authority contained in the corporation's certificate of incorporation orbylaws, officers of the corporation have no general or implied authority to sellor convey the corporation's real property. That authority must be specificallyconferred on an individual by a vote of the board of directors. The person soauthorized may be, but does not need to be, an officer of the corporation.µ SeeHollywyle Assn., Inc. v. Hollister,164 Conn. 389, 394-95 (1973).
In effect, defendants¶claim of right corresponds to as ifplaintiff established an µ
expressed trust¶
 for their benefit. Yet, the laws is clear as stated below that a written statement clarify an intentionof bestowing a gift is required to substance that the perquisite intention exists to give real property away without fair consideration of compensation. This where defendants refers to their ³legal right´ is established by the May 27
µagreement¶ (exh. A). Wherebysprung out from theµagreement¶ was the subsequent setting up of two LLC¶s to carry out the intention of thisagreement as the preliminary steps to facilitate defendants¶ promise to purchase the properties.Specifically,forming the LLCs was represented by the defendants to securerefinancing requiredthem to share an interest in the LLCs of 50% and have managementauthority. Consequently, defendants never brought the property, but claim legal entitlement tothe 50%ownership expressed in the contract as an express trust is defined as:³Express trust is a direct trust. A trust created or declared in express terms, and usually inwriting, as distinguished from one inferred by the law from the conduct or dealings of the parties. A trust directly created for specific purposes in contrast to a constructive or resulting trust which arises by implication of law or the demands of equity. Trusts whichare created by the direct and positive acts of the parties, by some writing, or deed, or will,or by words expressly or impliedly evincing an intention to create a trust.(Blacks LawDictionary, 6
Ed.)However, on the other hand, it is plaintiff¶s contention that the defendants¶claim of right to titleis a product of foul play and constructive fraud to exist as a µ
constructive trust
.¶ Since it wasnever plaintiff¶s intention, written or otherwise, to convey title of ownership to defendantswithout them paying the agreed three million. Albeit, instead of the 4 million that it could havefetched on the open market in lieu of the orally promised condition that plaintiffcould continuefor the rest of his life occupy the produce store building. This is while residing in the apartment
above his store for the rest of his life; with the sole condition he was obligated to pay $1,000.00 per month; as to be applied towards paying the monthly taxes accrued.In fact, the facts and circumstances corresponding to plaintiffsigning the quit-claims and hissignature on the mortgage documentswas a product of deception. Since, these documents weremisrepresented as paperwork corresponding to a $40,000.00 loan and to secure refinancing.Moreover, defendant¶s loan was established by an open-end loan with a two million dollar leanon his property that he never authorized. This is where defendant,Ronald Pecunies, establishedhimself as the lender on the mortgage deed conveyance instrument.In effect, the agreement of assigning the 50% ownership to defendants before they paid anymoney was obtained by false pretenses and a criminal act of fraud & deceit. This was byPecunies falsely stating to misrepresent that their 50% interest would be only until they got the property refinanced and was required to allow them to get a lower rate if it was on their name.Thereafter, once defendantsobtained refinancing Pecunies promised plaintiffthat they wouldlegally revert the title back to him owning 100%. Yet, defendantsafter refinancing hadsubsequently refused to revertthe ownership of 100%back to plaintiff as they promised. Such amatter of inducement to temporary sign over tile to be breached adjudicated as
:³Finding cause of action to impress atrust was stated where it was alleged that defendantrepresented to plaintiff that he could help clear titleby taking title in his name, cuttingtimber and then reconveying land);
 Burnett v. Holroyd,
278 Ga. 470,604 S.E.2d 137 (Ga.2004) (citing Ga. Code Ann. § 53-12-93(a)).

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->