From our private database of 35,800+ case briefs...
Mlinarcik v. E.E. Wehrung Parking, Inc.
Ohio Court of Appeals
620 N.E.2d 181, 86 Ohio App. 3d 134 (1993)
Edgar Wehrung created E. E. Wehrung Parking, Inc. (EE) (defendant) in 1948 to sublease a parking garage to another company for $41,600. Robert Wehrung owned 111 shares, Marilyn Wehrung, Robert’s wife, owned 28.5 shares, and Shirley Mlinarcik (plaintiff) owned 9.5 shares of EE. Robert and Shirley were Edgar’s children. Esther, Edgar’s wife, owned one share. After Edgar’s passing, Robert took over EE’s management, and Marilyn and Shirley were placed on the board of directors and paid director’s fees. Robert and Marilyn were paid salaries. For 15 years, Marilyn was paid $3,900 as EE’s secretary until her salary was increased in 1982 to $7,200. From 1982 through 1990, Robert was paid a salary of $10,800 as president of EE. Prior to Edgar’s passing, Edgar and Esther received compensation for services provided to EE. Robert’s compensation was less than Edgar’s. Neither Robert nor Marilyn received any fringe benefits from EE. Robert was responsible for the monthly payroll checks, and he prepared and deposited payroll taxes, wrote miscellaneous checks, and mailed shareholder reports once a month. Although Shirley received a director’s fee, EE held no shareholders’ or directors’ meeting, and Shirley was never told what she was supposed to do as a director. Shirley was not aware of Robert’s and Marilyn’s compensation. Shirley filed suit against EE, Robert, and Marilyn for excessive compensation paid to Robert and Marilyn. At trial, Shirley’s expert witness testified that the annual value of services provided by Robert and Marilyn was between $567, based on the services performed and the time necessary, and $2,000, if the services were performed by a management company. However, the expert’s testimony lacked evidence of compensation provided to similar owners in the local market and did not consider the impact of the lack of fringe benefits on the reasonableness of compensation to the directors. The trial court held that the compensation was not excessive. Shirley appealed, arguing that the compensation received was not reasonably related to the value of the services rendered and that it was Robert’s and Marilyn’s burdens to prove reasonableness of their compensation.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Harper, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 620,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,800 briefs, keyed to 984 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.