- 6 -
to petitioner. Although the stock of petitioner was nominally
owned by Margaret, Ohanesian claimed that petitioner was in fact
"his" corporation. On this basis, Ohanesian demanded that Mike
and Margaret (the Gehans) surrender to him the stock of
petitioner, together with all assets "currently ow[n]ed" by
petitioner, including the automobiles, office furnishings, and
equipment. (Although petitioner held title to the property
described above, the Ohanesian family and the related entities
had possession of those assets.)
In response to the termination of the agreements, the Gehans
and petitioner sued the Trust, the Ohanesian family, and SRI in
Superior Court of the State of California for, among other
things, breach of contract, recovery of the luxury automobiles,
and for recovery of the office equipment and furnishings used by
SRI. In its complaint, petitioner alleged the following facts to
be true: (1) Petitioner was the owner of the luxury automobiles;
(2) the members of the Ohanesian family had converted the
automobiles to their personal use; (3) petitioner was the owner
of the office equipment and furnishings used by SRI; and (4) the
written agreements between the parties were valid and
enforceable. In a sworn declaration accompanying the complaint,
Margaret, as president of petitioner, stated that petitioner was
at all times independent of the Trust and SRI.
The Ohanesian family, the Trust, and SRI alleged in their
cross-complaint that the management agreements were "fictitious"
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011