- 9 -
Department of Educ. v. Magna Carta Univ., No. 287846 (Cal. Super.
Ct. Aug. 14, 1986), involved Victor and his relationship to Magna
Carta. In that proceeding, it was held that Victor “used the
* * * assets of Magna Carta for the personal benefit of himself
and his family” and accordingly that Magna Carta was Victor’s
alter ego. The second proceeding, Van De Kamp v. Magna Carta
Univ., No. 17526 (Cal. Super. Ct. Apr. 9, 1990), addressed the
very question we consider in this proceeding: Who was entitled
to the proceeds from the sale of the building? In the second
case, the superior court again held that Magna Carta was the
alter ego of Victor and that the transactions (loans) between
Victor and Magna Carta were “a nullity as a matter of law, and
that those transactions cannot be relied upon by * * * [Arthur
and Edgar]”. The court further held that “all money transferred
by Arthur C. Brincat to the Victor Victory Trust from the down
payment of $410,000 is the property of Magna Carta University”.
The California Court of Appeals for the Third District affirmed
the holdings in the second case and also held that Arthur and
Edgar were in privity with Victor in connection with Victor’s
earlier proceedings and were collaterally estopped from
relitigating issues in the earlier cases.
The effect of these holdings negates even the possibility
that petitioners’ funds were inheritances received from the
trust. The requisites for collateral estoppel have been met in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011