Enea v. Superior Court
Court of Appeal of California
34 Cal.Rptr.3d 513 (2005)
Enea (plaintiff) sued William and Claudia Daniels (defendants), his former partners, for breaching their fiduciary duties by renting the partnership’s sole asset, an office building, to themselves at less than fair market value. The trial court granted the Daniels’ motion for summary judgment. The trial court found that California law authorized such conduct, that the Daniels had no duty to collect fair market value rent in the absence of a contract requiring them to do so, and that the primary purpose of the partnership was to hold the property for later sale as opposed to collecting market value rent.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Rushing, P.J.)