BURKLE v. BURKLE
Where defendant father capitalized limited liability company of which he was 99 percent owner and plaintiff daughter was one percent owner and subsequently withdrew the contents of plaintiff's capital account. Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant in action for accounting where ruling was based solely on defendant's declaration that he intended the capitalization funds as a loan, not a gift. Triable issue existed as to defendant's intent where plaintiff declared that defendant had never mentioned any loan and often told plaintiff and her siblings that he had "given" them investments. The defendant presented no evidence regarding the terms of the loan nor any evidence that plaintiff ever agreed to any terms. Trial court erred in declining to compel defendant to produce documents and answer questions about the assets of limited liability company of which plaintiff was part owner. Where California residents own--in aggregate--25 percent or more of a foreign limited liability company, each of those residents has inspection rights, and trial court erred in construing statute as limiting those rights to persons owning at least 25 percent of the company. Trial court abused its discretion when it denied plaintiff leave to amend her complaint to add claims for conversion and breach of fiduciary duty where the plaintiff did not seek to introduce new factual allegations or new claims of primary rights and defendant did not show he would be prejudiced.
Comments on BURKLE v. BURKLE