Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
By
problog
In an action that sought declaratory and injunctive relief, appellant homeowner sought review after the Superior Court of San Diego County (California) held that respondent association properly exercised its business judgment when respondent decided to treat termite infestation locally instead of fumigating an entire building.
The issue in this case was the applicability of the business judgment rule to decisions made by a homeowners association. Appellant homeowner sought review after the trial court held that respondent association properly exercised its business judgment when respondent decided to treat termite infestation locally instead of fumigating an entire building. Visit the best one of the san diego labor lawyers and consult with them about the San Diego labor law.
The court reversed and remanded. The court held that appellant had a dual relationship with respondent: a fiduciary relationship, under which respondent was required to exercise due care for the interests of the corporation; and a common law relationship, similar to that of landlord and tenant, which required the exercise of reasonable care to protect appellant's unit from undue damage. Appellant sought declaratory and injunctive relief against respondent on the theory that respondent as landlord had breached its duty to her as a tenant. Thus, the standard of care applicable to respondent's performance of maintenance and repair to the common areas occasioned by the existence of termites was provided by common law tort principles rather than by the business judgment rule.
The court reversed and remanded the trial court order that denied appellant's motion for declaratory and injunctive relief. Because respondent effectively functioned as the project's landlord with respect to repairing and maintaining the complex's common areas, traditional tort principles imposed on respondent, in its capacity as landlord, the duty to exercise reasonable care for appellant's property in performing repairs and maintenance.
Plaintiff, a corporate taxpayer, appealed a summary judgment from the Superior Court of Alameda County (California), which ruled in favor of defendant, the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB), in an action seeking a refund of corporate franchise taxes. The court initially affirmed the ruling; however, the case was remanded by the California Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of new case law.
The taxpayer was a unitary business that owned retail stores both within and without California. Its treasury department was located in another state and conducted all of the taxpayer's investment activities there. In calculating the sales factor for purposes of apportionment, the taxpayer included all money received when its investments matured, including return of principal. The FTB determined that only the income received when the investments matured should be included in the sales factor. The court held that Rev. & Tax. Code, § 25137, permitted the FTB to use an equitable alternative method to apportion the revenues of the taxpayer's unitary business because the sales factor provisions found in Rev. & Tax. Code, §§ 25120, subd. (e), and 25134, did not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer's business activity in California. The taxpayer's treasury functions were qualitatively different from its principal business, and it did not matter that the revenues supported or enhanced the company's primary business. The distortion was significant because short-term investments produced a very small percentage of business income, but more than half of gross receipts.
The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
The issue in this case was the applicability of the business judgment rule to decisions made by a homeowners association. Appellant homeowner sought review after the trial court held that respondent association properly exercised its business judgment when respondent decided to treat termite infestation locally instead of fumigating an entire building. Visit the best one of the san diego labor lawyers and consult with them about the San Diego labor law.
The court reversed and remanded. The court held that appellant had a dual relationship with respondent: a fiduciary relationship, under which respondent was required to exercise due care for the interests of the corporation; and a common law relationship, similar to that of landlord and tenant, which required the exercise of reasonable care to protect appellant's unit from undue damage. Appellant sought declaratory and injunctive relief against respondent on the theory that respondent as landlord had breached its duty to her as a tenant. Thus, the standard of care applicable to respondent's performance of maintenance and repair to the common areas occasioned by the existence of termites was provided by common law tort principles rather than by the business judgment rule.
The court reversed and remanded the trial court order that denied appellant's motion for declaratory and injunctive relief. Because respondent effectively functioned as the project's landlord with respect to repairing and maintaining the complex's common areas, traditional tort principles imposed on respondent, in its capacity as landlord, the duty to exercise reasonable care for appellant's property in performing repairs and maintenance.
Plaintiff, a corporate taxpayer, appealed a summary judgment from the Superior Court of Alameda County (California), which ruled in favor of defendant, the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB), in an action seeking a refund of corporate franchise taxes. The court initially affirmed the ruling; however, the case was remanded by the California Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of new case law.
The taxpayer was a unitary business that owned retail stores both within and without California. Its treasury department was located in another state and conducted all of the taxpayer's investment activities there. In calculating the sales factor for purposes of apportionment, the taxpayer included all money received when its investments matured, including return of principal. The FTB determined that only the income received when the investments matured should be included in the sales factor. The court held that Rev. & Tax. Code, § 25137, permitted the FTB to use an equitable alternative method to apportion the revenues of the taxpayer's unitary business because the sales factor provisions found in Rev. & Tax. Code, §§ 25120, subd. (e), and 25134, did not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer's business activity in California. The taxpayer's treasury functions were qualitatively different from its principal business, and it did not matter that the revenues supported or enhanced the company's primary business. The distortion was significant because short-term investments produced a very small percentage of business income, but more than half of gross receipts.
The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
Save
Share
Tweet
