Logourl black
From our private database of 13,300+ case briefs...

Smith v. Atlantic Properties, Inc.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
422 N.E.2d 798 (Mass.App.Ct. 1982)


Facts

Louis Wolfson (defendant), Paul Smith, Abraham Zimble, and William Burke each owned 25 percent of the outstanding shares of Atlantic Properties, Inc. (Atlantic). Atlantic’s bylaws stated that no corporate action could be taken without an affirmative vote of 80 percent of the outstanding stock. This provision effectively meant that any decision could be vetoed by one of the four partners. When Atlantic began to turn a profit, Smith, Zimble, and Burke (plaintiffs) wanted to declare dividends. Wolfson, however, repeatedly voted against declaring dividends, instead wanting to devote the funds to repairs on the property. The plaintiffs agreed to devote a moderate amount of the funds to repairs, but maintained that declaring dividends was the correct approach. Eventually, Atlantic accumulated so much profit that they were in excess of the IRS limits, which provided that at a certain point of profit, corporations must declare dividends. Wolfson still refused to vote in favor of declaring dividends and because of the 80 percent provision, Atlantic was not able to do so. The IRS accordingly assessed penalties against Atlantic for seven straight years, with Wolfson still refusing to give in. After about four years of the IRS penalties, the plaintiffs brought suit, seeking reimbursement to Atlantic from Wolfson for the IRS penalties. The Massachusetts Superior Court found in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that Wolfson’s actions were based in part on a desire to avoid tax payments and that Wolfson failed to present a definite program for repairs that would satisfy an IRS inquiry into the dividend matter. Wolfson appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Cutter, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. 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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 147,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,300 briefs, keyed to 182 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.