Lloydona Peters Enterprises, Inc. v. Dorius
Utah Supreme Court
658 P.2d 1209 (1983)
- Written by Jody Stuart, JD
Facts
Lloydona Peters Enterprises, Inc. (Lloydona) (plaintiff) was owned by four sisters in equal shares. Each sister served as a director and an officer. One of the sisters, DeLoris Dorius, and her husband (collectively, the Doriuses) (defendants) purchased an office building for which Lloydona agreed to pay half in exchange for a one-half interest in the property. Several years later, Lloydona and the Doriuses discussed the possibility of Lloydona selling its share in the property to the Doriuses. The directors agreed to get the property appraised. All four directors viewed the appraisal as valid, and the Doriuses gave a check for the appraised-value amount to Gay Driggs, director and treasurer of Lloydona. Jean Hull, director and president of Lloydona, and another director were undecided whether to sell Lloydona’s interest at the appraised price, but Driggs deposited the check in Lloydona’s bank account contrary to Hull’s and the other director’s express wishes. Subsequently, the Doriuses no longer recognized Lloydona’s interest in the property and discontinued forwarding Lloydona’s share of rental payments from the property. On behalf of Lloydona, Hull initiated an action in trial court against the Doriuses to convey to Lloydona a one-half interest in the property. The Doriuses filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that Hull had no authority to initiate litigation on behalf of Lloydona. The trial court granted the motion, and Lloydona appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hall, C.J.)
Dissent (Durham, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.