Broyhill v. DeLuca
United States Bankruptcy Court of the Eastern District of Virginia
194 B.R. 65 (1996)
- Written by DeAnna Swearingen, LLM
Facts
Joel T. Broyhill (plaintiff) and Robert and Marilyn DeLuca (defendants) created a limited liability company (LLC) called D & B Countryside, L.L.C. (D&B). The operating agreement required unanimous agreement of all members to appoint a manager but contained no provision on removal. The DeLucas were named managers. The agreement stated that the company would be dissolved by a set date or on the happening of certain events, including the bankruptcy of a partner. In such an event, the remaining members had the option to continue the business and appoint a new manager. The DeLucas offered Northern Virginia Realty, Inc. (NVRI) (plaintiff) a 15 percent share of D&B. Under the amended operating agreement, NVRI received 7.5 percent of both Broyhill’s and the DeLucas’ share. Broyhill did not sign the agreement but did not object. The DeLucas transferred D&B money to outside accounts and placed a $3 million deed of trust against D&B’s property without the other members’ knowledge. Broyhill and NVRI met and signed an agreement to remove the DeLucas as managers and elect Broyhill. The DeLucas filed chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions on behalf of themselves and D&B. Broyhill and NVRI executed an agreement to continue the business and elect Broyhill manager. Broyhill and NVRI requested a declaration that the DeLucas were validly removed as D&B’s managers and that Broyhill was validly made manager.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mitchell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.