Opinion ID: 194523
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Interest on the Stock Transaction

Text: The final order of the district court regarding the disbursement of the purchase price of the stock (which had been held in the registry of the district court), stated, subject to certain preconditions not relevant to this appeal, that the sum of $96,333.84 shall be released by the Clerk from the Registry of this Court to Peter Grabler, representing final payment to Grabler for his 100 shares of common stock of Benchmark Broadway Corporation and Benchmark Developers, Inc., each, pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Stipulation of 6/28/91. Order of Court, dated November 1991, reproduced in App. III, Tab 17 (emphasis added). Grabler argues that the November 1991 Order only applies to paragraph 2 -- the underlying obligation of Roizman concerning the purchase price for the stock -- and not to paragraph 5 which, he 11 asserts, addresses interest on the purchase price. Grabler also avers that contrary to Roizman's statement in Roizman's draft order (which the district court adopted) he (Grabler) never agreed to the language in Roizman's draft. Grabler points out that the draft order he submitted to the court, App. III, Tab 18, did not specify that the $96,000 was a final payment. We are unable to ascertain any basis in the record for Grabler's claim that he is due interest on the purchase price for the stock notwithstanding the final judgment of the court. Specifically, he has not carried his burden of demonstrating that paragraph 5 of the June Stipulation applied to the stock purchase. In any event, it is not clear from the record how such interest would have been calculated and Grabler, in support of his claim to interest, has not even established the period during which such interest would have accrued. Consequently, we decline to disturb the final judgment of the district court regarding this claim. C. Rule 19 Grabler finally argues on appeal that the district court failed to join Kohen, Benchmark, Blue Hill, Elm Hill, BFGL, Jones and the limited partners of Blue Hill and Elm Hill as indispensable parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19. We note in this context that Grabler never filed a Rule 19 motion for joinder. Nonetheless, the district court was aware that it had only Grabler and Roizman before it when it entered judgment and acknowledged that it was directing enforcement of Indeed, the only reference the district court made to an interest claim by Grabler was its statement that it was not persuaded that Roizman was required to pay interest on the sum of $102,441. App. II, Tab 2, at 101, which amount appears to relate to the Flipper Temple deal in Atlanta, not the stock purchase agreement between Grabler and Roizman. 12 the June stipulation between Grabler and Roizman. For the reasons stated below, it would be premature to address Grabler's Rule 19 claim at the present time. First, Grabler specifically promised to exercise good faith efforts to reach an agreement regarding the allocation of expenses and partnership distributions in connection with Benchmark and the limited partnerships. June Stipulation, 7. He entered into the stipulation, which the court treated as an enforceable contract at trial, knowing that the resolution of the accounting disputes might require action on behalf of Benchmark, Blue Hill, Elm Hill and others. Second, after both Grabler and Roizman filed post-trial motions