Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chris J. Stratis v. Burlington Diner Corporation

February 7, 2012


On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Special Civil Part, Burlington County, Docket No. DC 0351-10.

Per curiam.


Submitted January 24, 2012

Before Judges Fisher and Baxter.

This appeal raises questions about the rights and obligations of shareholders for the debts of a dissolved corporation and, more particularly, the impact of an agreement by which one shareholder agreed to indemnify and hold harmless another. Because the indemnification agreement is ambiguous --at least insofar as it purports to deal with the current situation -- and because of other uncertainties, we remand for development of the issues and particularly the parties' intentions in entering into the indemnification agreement.

The parties to this appeal -- plaintiff Chris J. Stratis and Djulia Kolenovic -- were the sole directors, officers and shareholders of Burlington Diner Corporation (BDC). Stratis filed a complaint in this action in January 2010, against only BDC, seeking damages based upon the alleged fact that he paid two claims asserted by BDC creditors. In the first of these alleged claims, a former BDC employee filed suit in Special Civil Part against Stratis and Kolenovic in March 2008, alleging BDC failed to pay him wages. Stratis alleged in his complaint here that he negotiated a settlement of that suit, but that eventually a judgment was entered in favor of the employee and against Stratis for $8,608.31. The second was a claim asserted in 2009 by a vendor seeking $2,048.31 on a lease of equipment to BDC that Stratis personally guaranteed.

On March 15, 2010, judgment was entered in favor of Stratis and against BDC in this action in the amount of $10,950.75, which represented the amount of the two claims, interest and fees. Because BDC was dissolved in 2008, Stratis filed a post-judgment motion, seeking, among other things, an order that would permit a levy against certain payments due the former shareholders of BDC. That is, as Stratis alleged in his complaint, BDC sold all its assets to KOPS, Inc. in 2008, and took back in consideration a note and mortgage, obligating KOPS to pay BDC $334,000 over time. Stratis and Kolenovic, the only shareholders of BDC, dissolved BDC, which assigned its interest in the note and mortgage to Stratis and Kolenovic in nearly equal portions.*fn1 After obtaining a judgment against BDC in this action, Stratis sought to levy against those mortgage payments in the execution proceedings in question in this appeal.*fn2

Kolenovic opposed the motion, asserting that she first became involved with BDC in 2002. In her words, Kolenovic soon realized that Stratis "was running the place into the ground" and "wasn't paying the bills, wasn't paying the taxes, and would constantly lie about the status of the business." Allegedly because of these and other concerns, Kolenovic sought and Stratis provided an agreement indemnifying her and holding her harmless from any claims against Stratis or BDC, such as -- she claims -- this suit and the underlying claims asserted by the former employee and the vendor. In addition, Kolenovic asserted that Stratis's settlement of the former employee's claim without her knowledge and his subsequent failure to abide by the settlement agreement, leading to greater liability, freed her from any responsibility for that obligation.*fn3 And, as for the vendor's claim, Kolenovic referred to the absence of any evidence that this represented a claim against BDC.

On April 29, 2011, the trial judge denied Stratis's motion; in her brief written opinion, the judge chiefly relied upon the indemnification agreement as protecting Kolenovic from claims of this sort. We reverse and remand chiefly because in relying upon the indemnification agreement, the judge mistakenly viewed it as, essentially, insulating BDC from claims brought against BDC. That is, if it is assumed that the claims of the former employee and vendor were the legitimate debts of BDC, then it is BDC's obligation, in the first instance, to pay them; BDC cannot take refuge behind an indemnification agreement given by one shareholder to another.

Nor is it likely that BDC's dissolution absolves it from suit. If we assume, despite the limitations of the record on appeal, that the claims of the former employee and the vendor are legitimate debts, then the fact that they were asserted after BDC was dissolved does not insulate BDC -- or, for that matter, its shareholders -- from liability. N.J.S.A. 14A:12-9. Moreover, as mentioned above, when it sold its business assets to KOPS, BDC received KOPS's promise to pay part of the purchase price over time, as memorialized by a note and secured by a mortgage. Upon dissolution, BDC conveyed its interest in the note and mortgage to its two shareholders. It could not, however, avoid liability for its debts by shedding its assets in this fashion, In re Collins-Doan Co., 3 N.J. 382, 389 (1949); a creditor may look to assets transferred to shareholders after a corporation's dissolution, N.J.S.A. 14A:12-9(1)(c).

But that conclusion, when considered here, only generates additional questions. The former employee's suit sought judgment against Stratis and Kolenovic personally; the pleadings in that suit contained in the record on appeal do not suggest that the claim was asserted against BDC or that BDC was ever found liable for that debt. To the extent this was a debt of BDC's, then as a general matter one shareholder who paid it on behalf of the corporation may be entitled to a pro rata reimbursement from another shareholder; the record, however, does not reveal enough about the claim to permit a clear disposition of the shareholders' obligations to each other.

In addition, as noted above, Stratis and Kolenovic entered into an indemnification agreement. Although, as the trial judge correctly observed, the agreement to indemnify is expressed in broad terms, the agreement nevertheless consists of provisions so general in scope and meaning as to evade a clear understanding of the parties' intentions and the agreement's application in this setting. To explain, we observe that the indemnification agreement consists of a two-paragraph preamble and a two-paragraph section containing the precise terms of Stratis's promises to Kolenovic.

The first paragraph of the preamble refers to certain specific transactions or liabilities to which the agreement applied, namely: (1) Kolenovic's purchase from Stratis of a 50% interest in BDC for $200,000 made up, apparently, of a $150,000 bank loan, which, according to the preamble, Kolenovic had paid, and a $50,000 loan from Nick Stratis, secured by a note that was unpaid and for which Stratis "agreed to assume payment of the balance owed"; (2) an agreement of sale entered into by BDC and Theodore V. Kopsaftis, which we assume to be the transaction that ultimately took place between BDC and KOPS, Inc.; and (3) "certain obligations owed by [BDC] [that] were disclosed to Kolenovic" and for which Stratis "assumed responsibility for the payment." The claims underlying the judgment entered in this action do not appear encompassed by the first two categories. The third category's reference to "certain obligations" is not otherwise defined and its understanding remains dependent upon information not revealed by the agreement itself or, for that matter, the record.

The second and last paragraph of the preamble attempts to express the parties' intent in ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.