Court Opinion

ID: 9679764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:05:32.955791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:19.651509
License: Public Domain

O’CONNOR, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. The majority holds that the leveling agreement is not sufficiently definite to be enforceable.
Both parties agree that they had an oral leveling agreement. At his deposition, Baker acknowledged that they agreed to level the stock once his personal credit was no longer necessary for the financial well-being of the corporation.
The majority finds the agreement was not definite because at the time they made the leveling agreement there were three parties — Gannon, Baker, and Nail — and at the time of the suit there were two — Gan-non and Baker. Thus, the majority holds, because the agreement did not specify how the stock would be equalized if one of the three sold his interest, the entire agreement was unenforceable.
I would hold that the agreement to level was a certain and definite agreement. Under the agreement, Gannon could expect to get as much as one-half of the stock to as little as one-third of the stock. I would reverse and remand the issue of Gannon’s percent of stock ownership to the jury. The majority hold he gets nothing because they did not plan for Nail selling his interest to Baker.