Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 11-15-2024
Case Style:
Madhu Iyer v. Prism FSH Properties, LLC, et al.
Case Number: A24A1758
Judge: Not Available
Court: Superior Court, Fulton County, Georgia
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Atlanta, Georgia civil litigation lawyers represent the plaintiff and the defendant in a case about equitable relief and conversion.
Madhu and Ganesan were divorced in February 2017 pursuant to a divorce decree that incorporated the parties' settlement agreement. The agreement provided that Madhu would receive a 50 percent interest in Prism HSH, a real estate investment limited liability corporation owned by Ganesan, stating:
[Ganesan] shall assign fifty percent (50%) of his interest [in Prism HSH] to [Madhu] and assist [Madhu] to be inducted as a member of the LLC within thirty (30) days from the execution date of this Agreement. [Ganesan] will remain the managing member for Prism HSH.
The agreement further provided:
[T]he parties agree that each party shall receive 50% of net proceeds received from all dividends, sales or other income received from Prism HSH from the date of this Agreement forward. Such funds shall be directly disbursed by Prism HSH to the parties individually. If any capital calls or other funds [are] needed for the ownership interests, each shall pay fifty percent (50%) of those costs from the date of this Agreement forward. In the event of a sale of the ownership interest, the proceeds will be split fifty percent (50%) each, with each party paying its own share of taxes.
As required, Madhu became a 50 percent interest holder in Prism HSH following the divorce. Since that time, she has raised questions about the Prism HSH disbursements, asserting that Ganesan failed to distribute corporate proceeds to her, and, in 2020, Ganesan was found in contempt of the divorce decree for withholding distributions. The 2020 contempt finding, however, did not resolve the ongoing dispute over corporate proceeds.
On September 10, 2021, Madhu filed the instant action against the appellees (the "business action"), asserting that because Ganesan had continually mismanaged the corporation and failed to distribute corporate proceeds, she was entitled to: (1) judicial dissolution of Prism HSH; (2) an injunction prohibiting Ganesan from conducting any corporate operations other than winding down the business; (3) an injunction prohibiting Ganesan from withholding future payments owed to Madhu; (4) an equitable accounting of Prism HSH's assets and liabilities; and (5) damages for conversion based on Ganesan's conduct in "tortiously convert[ing] [Madhu's] funds into his own possession[.]" A few days later, Madhu filed a new contempt action in connection with the divorce decree (the "2021 contempt action"), alleging that Ganesan had wilfully failed and/or refused to distribute Prism HSH proceeds to her. Madhu requested that Ganesan be held in contempt and "ordered to relinquish [her] 50% distribution payments from Prism HSH that are owed to her to date plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest[.]"...
Iyer v. Prism HSH Props., A24A1758 (Ga. App. Nov 15, 2024)
Outcome: Reversed in part and vacated in part.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: