Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Henkels & McCoy, Inc. v. Adochio

March 09, 1998

HENKELS & MCCOY, INC.
v.
ROBERT ADOCHIO, RALPH ANDERSON, ROBERT BADER, RALPH BARUCH, JOHN BUCK, ALAN GOLDBERG, FRED GREEN, LEONARD C. GREEN, C. BRUCE JOHNSTONE, HERBERT KAUFER, BILL LUCAS, WILLIAM MILLER, ARTHUR ROTHLEIN, EDWARD ROWAN, JOSEPH SCUTELLARO, CONRAD STRUDLER, BARRY WAGENBERG, ARTHUR WELLMAN, JAMES R. WILLING, AND CHESTER DAVIS RALPH ANDERSON, ROBERT BADER, RALPH BARUCH, JOHN BUCK, FRED GREEN, LEONARD C. GREEN, C. BRUCE JOHNSTONE, HERBERT KAUFER, BILL LUCAS, ARTHUR ROTHLEIN, EDWARD ROWAN, JOSEPH SCUTELLARO, BARRY WAGENBERG, ARTHUR WELLMAN, JAMES R. WILLING AND CHESTER DAVIS, APPELLANTS



An Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania D.C. No. 94-cv-03958 Argued: October 15, 1997

Before: Stapleton, Alito, and Rosenn, Circuit Judges.

Opinion Filed March 9, 1998

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROSENN, Circuit Judge.

This appeal presents an important question pertaining to the obligation of limited partners to return capital contributions distributed to them in violation of their partnership agreement which required that they establish reasonably necessary reserves. The issue is rendered complex by an interrelated maze of corporations and partnerships devised by the limited partners and the general partner in their efforts to develop two separate real estate projects. One of these, Timber Knolls, was aborted shortly after conception, and the other, Chestnut Woods, became the genesis of protracted litigation and of this appeal.

The defendants-appellants are limited partners of Red Hawk North Associates, L.P. (Red Hawk) L.P., a New Jersey limited partnership. G&A Development Corporation (G&A) is the general partner of Red Hawk. Cedar Ridge Development Corporation (Cedar Ridge), a New Jersey corporation, and Red Hawk entered into a joint venture agreement, the Chestnut Woods Partnership (Chestnut), to develop, construct, and market residential homes in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Red Hawk and Cedar Ridge are both general partners of Chestnut Woods. Under the joint venture agreement, Red Hawk would provide the funding and Cedar Ridge would provide the land which it previously

had agreed to purchase. Cedar Ridge would act as the managing partner and general contractor.

On December 29, 1989, Cedar Ridge, as general contractor for Chestnut Woods, entered into a written subcontract with Henkels & McCoy, Inc. (Henkels), the plaintiff herein, to have it furnish the labor, materials, and equipment for the installation of the storm and sanitary sewer systems for the project. Cedar Ridge agreed to pay Henkels a fixed-price of $300,270 under the contract. Henkels completed the installation of the storm and sewer systems but Chestnut Woods defaulted in making the payments due under the contract. Henkels, a Pennsylvania corporation, then filed three actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Henkels filed the first in December 1990 against Cedar Ridge and Red Hawk, trading as Chestnut Woods, for the balance due on the contract plus interest. The court entered a default judgment which was not satisfied in whole or part.

Henkels then filed suit against G&A in its capacity as a general partner of Red Hawk and obtained a default judgment in the same amount as it had obtained against Cedar Ridge and Red Hawk. Efforts to obtain payment on this judgment also proved fruitless and counsel for the defendants advised plaintiff 's counsel by letter dated October 26, 1993 that Red Hawk was worthless. Henkels' counsel also had been advised that G&A was unable to pay the judgment out of its assets.

Henkels finally brought this suit against the nineteen limited partners of Red Hawk (the Partners), standing in the shoes of the Red Hawk limited partnership; sixteen of the partners are parties to this appeal. Henkels sought, inter alia, to compel replacement of certain capital distributions made by Red Hawk to the limited partners aggregating $492,000 during the period that Cedar Ridge was obligated under its contract with Henkels to pay Henkels $300,270. Henkels alleged that the capital distributions were made in violation of the Red Hawk limited partnership agreement and § 42:2A-46(b) of the New Jersey Uniform Limited Partnership Law of 1976 (New Jersey ULPL).

After the district court denied both Henkels's and the Partners' motions for summary judgment,*fn1 it conducted a bench trial and on January 6, 1997, entered judgment in favor of Henkels. The court held each limited partner of Red Hawk liable to Henkels for his proportionate share of liability in the total amount of $371,101.84 plus interest to the date of payment of any judgment. The Partners appealed. We affirm.*fn2

I.

The following facts are undisputed and are based upon the stipulation of the parties and the findings of fact made by the district court. The Red Hawk partnership, consisting of 20 (1 deceased)*fn3 limited partners and one corporate general partner, G&A, was formed in 1986. Pursuant to their partnership agreement, the Partners contributed $3.5 million in capital which ultimately they allocated to two distinct partnership projects, Timber Knolls and Chestnut Woods.

In 1987, Red Hawk and Cedar Ridge entered into a joint venture agreement forming the Chestnut Woods Partnership, with both Red Hawk and Cedar Ridge as general partners. Under the joint venture agreement, Red Hawk would provide the capital funds for the project and Cedar Ridge would provide the general management and assign its contract for the purchase of the land. Red Hawk funded the Partnership with an initial capital contribution of $650,000 (and an additional contribution of $200,000 in 1988). Cedar Ridge agreed to act as both the managing partner and the general contractor of the Chestnut Woods project. In addition, Cedar Ridge had the right to incur liabilities on behalf of the partnership in connection with the partnership's reasonable and legitimate business, borrow money in the name of the partnership, and incur reasonable and legitimate expenses related to the Chestnut Woods property. Work on the Chestnut Woods project subsequently commenced.

In 1988, Red Hawk and Cedar Ridge entered into a second and distinct joint venture agreement to form the Timber Knolls partnership, under which both Red Hawk and Cedar Ridge were also general Partners. Red Hawk contributed $2.3 million to the Timber Knolls partnership and Cedar Ridge again agreed to act as both the managing partner and the general contractor of the project. Unlike the Chestnut Woods project, the Timber Knolls project never commenced operations. Therefore, in 1988, the Red Hawk Partners entered into an agreement with Cedar Ridge requiring the latter to return Red Hawk's $2.3 million capital contribution. As evidence of this obligation, Cedar Ridge executed promissory notes aggregating $2.3 million with interest and principal payable quarterly.*fn4 Cedar Ridge made quarterly payments to Red Hawk on the notes, and G&A distributed these payments to the individual Red Hawk Partners, as follows:

Payments by Distributions by Cedar Ridge G&A to the to Red Hawk Red Hawk Date On the Notes Partners (1) Jan. 1989 $78,750 $76,200 (2) April 1989 $215,000 $207,900 (3) July 1989 $215,000 $207,900 Totals $508,750 $492,000

Meanwhile, on December 29, 1988, Cedar Ridge, in its role as general contractor of Chestnut Woods, bound itself to a $300,270 fixed-price contract with Henkels, under which Henkels agreed to furnish and install storm and sanitary sewer systems for the Chestnut Woods development. The contract identified Cedar Ridge as the "General Contractor," Henkels as the "Subcontractor," and Chestnut Woods as the "Property Owner." The contract did not mention the relationship between Cedar Ridge and the Chestnut Woods Partnership, and made no reference to Red Hawk. It provided that the General Contractor, Cedar Ridge, was obligated to pay Henkels, payments to be made against billed invoices 30 days after approved inspection. At that time, Henkels was unaware that Cedar Ridge and Red Hawk were partners in Chestnut Woods.

On January 16, 1989, Henkels commenced the installation of the Chestnut Woods storm and sewer systems and completed the work according to the contract in late 1989. Under the contract, Cedar Ridge was required to pay Henkels in progress payments as invoiced. Accordingly, Henkels invoiced Cedar Ridge and received payments as follows:

Invoice Invoice Date Amount Invoice Status (1) Feb. 24, 1989 $37,632 paid in full 4/4/89 (2) May 24, 1989 $33,421 paid in full 7/6/89 (3) Aug. 14, 1989 $215,175 only $25,000 paid on 10/19/89 (4) Sept. 28, 1989 $37,183 no payment (5) Nov. 9, 1989 $10,586 no payment $333,996 Total amount paid = $96,053

Thus, Henkels received a partial payment in October on its August invoice and no payments on its September and November invoices, leaving a total unpaid balance of $237,943. G&A, the general partner for Red Hawk, failed to establish any reserves from the cash receipts of the limited partnership.

On March 16, 1990, Cedar Ridge sold its assets to Red Hawk. Shortly thereafter, in April 1990, G&A agreed with Henkels to pay Cedar Ridge's outstanding obligations to it, including accrued interest. However, Cedar Ridge paid only two small payments aggregating $8,000.

On December 19, 1990, Henkels sued Cedar Ridge and Red Hawk, trading as Chestnut Woods, claiming breach of

the installation contract and the April 1990 agreement, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy to defraud. Henkels obtained judgment against Cedar Ridge and Red Hawk in the amount of $282,421.55, including interest. Cedar Ridge and Red Hawk were unable to satisfy this judgment, in whole or in part.

In June 1992, Henkels sued G&A in its capacity as general partner of Red Hawk for the amount of the judgment previously obtained against Cedar Ridge and Red Hawk. On August 12, 1992, the Henkels obtained a default judgment against G&A in the sum of $282,424.55 plus interest at 6% per annum from October 15, 1991. When Henkels learned that G&A was unable to satisfy this judgment in whole or in part, it filed the instant suit seeking to have the Partners return to Red Hawk the cash capital distributions they received in 1989 as limited partners so that Red Hawk could satisfy the judgment obtained by Henkels against it.

The parties stipulated in the district court that the distributions made to the Red Hawk limited partners constituted a return of capital and that the distributions did not violate the New Jersey Limited Partnership Act. The district court concluded, however, in a careful and thorough opinion, that Paragraph 12(a) of the Red Hawk agreement of limited partnership governed the distribution of all cash receipts, except those derived from the operation of the property, and found that the payments on the promissory note from Cedar Ridge to Red Hawk did not constitute cash receipts derived from operations. It therefore held that the general partner was obligated to follow the mandate of Paragraph 12(a)(iv) of the partnership agreement which required the establishment of reasonable reserves prior to distributing cash receipts to the limited partners.

The district court found that the general partner in Red Hawk failed to establish any reserves and that Red Hawk had knowledge of its contingent obligations in the Chestnut Woods project and knew or should have known of the strong potential that the assets of Chestnut Woods would not cover the expenses it continued to incur for site improvements by Henkels and for which Red Hawk was

ultimately responsible. Accordingly, it held that Red Hawk violated the partnership agreement by failing to establish reasonable reserves to cover the cost of the site improvements made by Henkels.

The court accordingly entered a verdict in favor of Henkels and against the Partners individually for their proportionate share of liability in accordance with the monetary sums set forth in its Conclusions of law in the total amount of $371,101.84 to date plus interest to the date of payment of any judgment.

The Partners appealed.

II.

On appeal, the Partners contend that the district court erred in holding that at the times of the distributions by Red Hawk to its limited partners, Henkels was a creditor of Red Hawk and that the distributions were made in violation of the partnership agreement. They also argue that even if Henkels were a creditor of Chestnut Woods, Red Hawk, as a Chestnut Woods partner, was not jointly and severally liable for the partnership debts (as a guarantor of payment) but rather only contingently liable as a guarantor of collection, and then only in the event Henkels obtained a judgment against the Chestnut Woods Partnership and failed to collect on such judgment.

This Court reviews a district court's construction and application of the New Jersey Uniform Limited Partnership Law de novo. See Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 231 (1991); Schreiber v. Kellogg, 50 F.3d 264, 266 (3d Cir. 1995). However, whether Red Hawk and G&A breached the Red Hawk limited partnership agreement by failing to establish reasonably necessary reserves, and thus the Partners ultimately received the distributions in violation of the agreement, is a mixed question of law and fact. Accordingly, this Court exercises plenary review of the legal operation of the partnership agreement, but will vacate the district court's contract interpretations and subsidiary ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.