legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Costenbader v. Costenbader

Costenbader v. Costenbader
04:26:2006

Costenbader v. Costenbader







Filed 4/25/06 Costenbader v. Costenbader CA1/4






NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS





California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.




I


N THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA






FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT







DIVISION FOUR















JACK COSTENBADER, as a Derivative Plaintiff etc.,


Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


DONALD J. COSTENBADER et al.,


Defendants and Appellants.



A109918


(San Francisco County


Super. Ct. No. CGC-02-411784)



I.


INTRODUCTION


This case arises out of the denouement of a family business. Appellants Donald J. Costenbader (Donald) and Vivian L. Costenbader (Vivian)[1], former corporate officers, directors, and majority shareholders of Jersey Constructors, Inc. (Jersey), appeal from a $738,362.33 judgment against them based on their breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, concealment and fraud. They maintain that the damages are excessive and that no substantial evidence supports certain of the trial court's findings. We affirm.


II.


PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


Respondent Jack Costenbader (Jack), a minority shareholder and officer of Jersey, brought the underlying derivative action on behalf of Jersey against Donald and Vivian for an accounting, declaratory relief, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, concealment and fraud, and sought a preliminary injunction. The court granted a preliminary injunction on September 9, 2002, which, inter alia, enjoined Donald and Vivian from making personal expenditures of corporate funds and required them to return all Jersey-owned property.


Following a bench trial, the court issued its statement of decision and judgment against Donald and Vivian in the amount of $738,362.33. This sum included $315,362.33 for â€





Description A decision regarding breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, concealment and fraud. The case arises out of the denouement of a family business.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale