Case Law Summaries

Crouse v. Agorganic, Inc.

• Opinion Date: September 30, 2003
• Business Law
• E-Mail

CORPORATIONS; SHAREHOLDERS—It is not necessary that a stock certificate be issued to vest a person with a stockholder’s rights and privileges since a person may be vested under a contract with an equitable right of ownership.

A corporation was organized in 1983. A woman believed that she was to be a 49% owner and her brother was to be a 51% owner. She never received a stock certificate. She signed the organizational papers as secretary, allegedly in blank, listing only her brother as a stockholder. She was named by her brother as a stockholder in bid documents to various municipalities over the years, sometimes as having more than a 10% interest, sometimes substantially less. The woman was “intimately and continuously involved in the management and operation” of the business after it was organized. Eight years after incorporation, her brother sold all of his stock for a substantial amount of money, representing that he was the sole shareholder of the company. He did not tell his sister of the sale. It appears that he made up a number of stories to explain why there were some subsequent changes in the business and why her salary checks came from a new corporation. In 1997, for the first time, she learned that her brother had made the sale. It was then that her brother told her that she never had an interest in the corporation. She filed suit against her brother shortly thereafter, six years and four months after her brother had sold his shares.

This set of facts gave rise to a question as to whether her suit was filed within the six year statute of limitations. The issue to be determined was when the sister first knew or should have known that she was not a shareholder of the corporation, if, in fact, she was not a shareholder of the corporation. The Court conducted preliminary hearings and concluded that she should have known that she was not a stockholder way back in 1983 because she did not receive her share certificate at that time. The lower court thought it was “faced with fourteen years of doing nothing until the filing of the suit on July 23, 1997, to say, one, I was an owner and I wasn’t given my stock certificate, or my stock certificate was sold. Was converted to someone else. I was cheated. I was an owner.”

The Appellate Division was upset by the lower court’s treatment of the issue. New Jersey incorporates the discovery rule into an analysis as to when a statute of limitation begins to run. “The accrual date of a cause of action is deferred until the plaintiff knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should know, that she has an actionable claim against the defendant.” It is an equitable principle. In this case, the question as to when the sister knew or should have known that it was alleged that she was not an owner of the company was the ultimate fact and should have been left to a jury to decide. All that the preliminary hearing should have determined was when the woman was first chargeable with knowledge. Instead, the lower court, “without addressing the issues of [the brother’s] alleged fraud and breach of enforceable promise, which were at the heart of the complaint, viewed [the sister’s] actual ownership as the single dispositive issue, equated actual ownership with issuance of a stock certificate, and concluded that since [the sister] knew she had not been issued a stock certificate her cause of action against [her brother] failed on its merits.”

Here, the sister was relying, in the first instance on what she contended was an oral agreement to form a corporation with a 49/51 percent ownership split. Whether or not a stock certificate had been issued to her, such an agreement would have given her an equitable ownership in the company. Long ago, New Jersey case law held “it is not necessary that a stock certificate actually issued ... in order to vest [an individual] with a stockholder’s rights and privileges, since [a stockholder is] vested under [a] contract [such as was alleged in this case] with an equitable interest commensurate with the requirements thereof.” Further, the sister was entitled to pursue an alternate theory that she was promised that she would be a 49% owner “and hence, if she was not already an equitable owner, she reasonably relied on that promise devoting her full-time efforts to the success of that business since 1983.” Sale of the company without delivering her interest would have been a breach of that promise.

Copyright ©2003. Meislik & Meislik. All rights reserved.