Leo N. Levitt and Ruth G. Levitt - Page 40

                                       - 40 -                                         
          from the Polymer account $107,000 in 1963, $236,400 in 1964,                
          $3,250 in 1965, $462,941 in 1966, $41,428 in 1968, and $125,000             
          in 1969.  The bankruptcy court found that Chemical Traders checks           
          totaling $115,000 were written to cash in 1966.  The bankruptcy             
          court traced $84,941 to petitioner's stock brokerage accounts.              
          The bankruptcy court found Chemical Traders checks totaling                 
          $106,500 written to petitioner's personal accounts in 1967.  The            
          bankruptcy court was required to and did decide whether fraud was           
          present.  It found clear and convincing evidence that petitioner            
          diverted Resyn funds to himself through the Polymer and Chemical            
          Traders accounts.  Collateral estoppel precludes petitioner from            
          relitigating that matter.  Thus, petitioner may not relitigate              
          the fact that he controlled the Polymer and Chemical Traders bank           
          accounts and that Polymer and Chemical Traders were fictional               
          entities which he created to divert funds to himself from Resyn.            
          Petitioner may contest the extent to which he diverted funds from           
          Resyn to himself, beyond that found by the bankruptcy court.                
                    b.   Final Prior Judgment                                         
               The second element for collateral estoppel is met because              
          the bankruptcy court's decision is final.         c.   Identity             
          of or Privity With Parties                                                  
               The third element for collateral estoppel is met because               
          petitioner is in privity with Resyn.                                        
               A sole or controlling stockholder can be in privity with his           
          or her closely held corporation.  Marin v. Augedahl, 247 U.S.               

Page:  Previous  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011