Opinion ID: 2629946
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Broemmel's Testimony

Text: [¶ 26] When the parties met in 2001, Broemmel mentioned that he was in the process of selling a building in Denver and was interested in purchasing firearms collections. Broemmel did not recall discussing any other potential business transactions with Meima at that time. After Broemmel moved to North Carolina on April 10, 2001, he had a lot of contact with Meima, who became very persistent and very aggressive.... [¶ 27] Meima was interested in having his own home and at some point offered Broemmel some incentives to finance the Torrington house purchase. The parties discussed the Baltic properties (including the Kubich option), valued at over $2 million according to Meima, because Meima was attempting to transfer the properties so his ex-wife would acquiesce to the transfer without having any information how valuable it was.... [13] Meima promised that in exchange for financing the Torrington house purchase, Broemmel would receive twenty percent of the realized profits on the sale or the development of the Baltic properties, and that was part of ... our agreement. [¶ 28] Broemmel could not make any commitments until April, because he would not have any funds until his own building was sold (it sold April 4, 2001). While the parties talked for quite some time about Meima's proposal, Broemmel was never enthusiastic about it. I knew I would probably run it by my wife, and she [would be] against it.... [14] However, if Broemmel could get in and out of that thing in a short period of time [(six months)], like Mr. Meima told me, then it would be okay and the proposal seemed like a worthwhile item to take a look at.... According to Broemmel, Meima assumed I was going to do it from the get go. His interpretation of my enthusiasm when I didn't have the wherewithal to do it was way beyond what the reality was. Nevertheless, Broemmel verbally made a commitment to Meima to finance the Torrington house purchase sometime after April 10, 2001. [15] [¶ 29] Broemmel did not recall telling Meima the night before the June 2001 closing on the Torrington house that Broemmel would not proceed with the purchase because his wife would object. Rather, according to Broemmel, Meima hadn't any document for me or any money commitment or anything. It couldn't have been closing; Meima didn't have any financial commitment or firm resources that would allow anyone to close the night before [the closing]. Broemmel similarly did not recall ever threatening to not exercise the Kubich option. [¶ 30] Prior to the July 2001 closing on the Torrington house, Broemmel began putting together the agreement he and Meima had talked about. We had to have an agreement before we entered into this contract. Broemmel testified as follows regarding the July 24, 2001, lease/purchase agreement, the July 25, 2001, promissory note, and the July 25, 2001, addendum to the promissory note: Well, it was a summation of all that we had talked about over the previous months on the different conditions for the purchase of the house; and I knew that if I was going to be able to some time in the future justify this to my wife, I would have to make sure that I am very well covered, collaterallywise, or I would risk serious injury to my marriage; so I made sure I reiterated what we had already agreed upon and made sure the collateral was sufficient that I didn't think I had a problem if he would default. Q [Broemmel's counsel:] Is there anything there that was not agreed to before the document was signed? A I don't think that we had come to a conclusion yet on the monthly payments that were going to be necessary; and I told him that I had to have this paid back in 6 months, and he said that he could do it; and I said, well, I will charge you $2,000 a month then for the rent on the place to encourage, make sure I do get this paid back, because I don't want to jeopardize my relationship with my wife. He had already agreed to most of the other terms. He did provide additional collateral by saying he had an additional piece of property, the Celina Flat one, and he gave me that information; and as far as the rifles are concerned, the collection, he had a fellow that had it, and he didn't want to lose that collection; so I paid $16,500 and kept possession of it; and it was stipulated that if he defaults payment for two weeks, I will keep his equity in it; even though I don't know how much more than the $16,500 it was worth. Meima never objected to any of the terms of these agreements (which agreements were an assimilation of what [Meima] said, what we had agreed upon, except, basically, for the rent issue) and Broemmel merely put things in writing which we agreed upon (we were trying to get exactly what we needed before the sale actually took place). [16] [¶ 31] Regarding the trust language in particular, Broemmel testified that he did not know anything about trusts and initially wanted to have the Torrington house titled solely in his name. Meima convinced him to switch[ ] it to a trustee; Broemmel would have complete say over anything that goes on inside the trust; and there is no way that [Broemmel] could get taken advantage of.... [17] That sounded logical to Broemmel and he went ahead and proceeded. [Meima's counsel:] Did you take this property as trustee of Northern Commercial Trust under your own type of trust agreement, a verbal agreement that you had, that you would hold that property in trust for Mr. Meima? A We did it specifically for this transaction. That's all I can say. I never saw another trust, so I can't say it was for that trust or for whatever trust. We just named that trust for that transaction. Q And you would be a trustee, correct? A Yes. Q And in your written agreements, the ones that ... we have been looking at, there is a first one and then an addendum, marked Exhibit 14 and 15, you put it in there to hold it for the benefit of Meima, correct? ... Q Okay, No. 10. A Yes. Q So you were acting as a trustee in that capacity? A Yes. Q And you and your wife loaned money to the Northern Commercial Trust so the trust could invest in the property? A I came there to take possession in my own name. I didn't feel comfortable about the trust, no; but when he assured me that everything is in place, then I went ahead and took possession as the trustee. Broemmel further stated during his testimony that the trust purchased the Torrington property, that Broemmel was still trustee, that Broemmel lent money to the trust for the Torrington house purchase, and that Broemmel was holding the Torrington house in trust for Meima pending Meima's performance of the lease/purchase agreement. [¶ 32] Broemmel also agreed at some point to exercise the Kubich option and it was always his understanding that he would be reimbursed for the costs to exercise the option; Meima's testimony to the contrary was absurd. In order to obtain the money to exercise the option, Broemmel ultimately contributed $40,000.00, and another individual agreed to contribute $100,000.00 if Broemmel would pay him $40,000.00 in interest. Broemmel testified that Meima agreed to this arrangement and to reimburse Broemmel for both the $140,000.00 to exercise the option, as well as the $40,000.00 in interest Broemmel paid to the third individual. When a portion of the Baltic properties was sold in 2003, Broemmel received $142,000.00 (apparently $2,000.00 in expenses were incurred in exercising the option) and paid $140,000.00 of it to the third individual. [18] [¶ 33] Broemmel paid the property taxes and insurance on the Torrington house. Broemmel ultimately claimed that he was owed $185,817.91 for his initial contribution to the Torrington house purchase, $45,500.00 in rent from April 2002 through October 2003, $2,762.00 for insurance paid on the Torrington house, $4,195.73 for taxes paid on the Torrington house, the $10,000.00 profit for financing the Torrington house purchase, and some other amounts that are not of consequence to this appeal.