 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Turner v. Turner9/30/2002
and owing BSL ...," claiming that Mr. Turner misappropriated monies from BSL.
Appellant points out that, on June 9, 1997, when Mr. Turner's fraudulent conduct was discovered, it was believed that he had only taken $28,000, but the sum continued to escalate until, by March 1999, Mr. Turner admitted that he took $112,000. Appellant avers that the amount involved far exceeds the sum acknowledged by Mr. Turner. In an effort to discover the facts, appellant sought the computer passwords, but appellee "stonewalled."
Appellees assert that appellant waived her claim for an accounting because she failed to object to the motion to dismiss Count XI, which the court granted on September 29, 1999. As appellant observes in her reply brief, however, Count XI was filed against both BSL and Mr. Turner, but the motion was filed only by Mr. Turner. Therefore, appellant maintains that the accounting claim is "still outstanding as to BSL as a party...."
The following testimony is relevant to the accounting claim:
[APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY]: ave you allowed [appellant] to go in and examine the company files, all of them for `93, `94 rather, `95, `96 and `97 and `98 to see?
[MR. TURNER]: There's nothing for `98.
[APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY]: Just a moment. To see whether or not you got all the NC files? Have you allowed her to do that?
[MR. TURNER]: How would she know if I don't?
[APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY]: Have you allowed her to exam the files to determine whether or not you've declared all the NC or not? Yes or no.
[MR. TURNER]: No. I have not.
[APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY]: Now, you've heard her testify, did you not, that she could determine the NC based upon the payroll for the job and the amount of income coming in from the job to see if they were disproportionate. Didn't you hear that?
[MR. TURNER]: I did hear that.
[APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY]: But you haven't allowed her to do that, have you, sir?
[MR. TURNER]: No, I haven't.
[APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY]: If you've made full disclosure, what possible harm could there be in doing that, Mr. Turner?
[MR. TURNER]: None.
[APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY]: Yet you've refused to allow it anyway; isn't that correct?
[MR. TURNER]: Yes. If that's a yes or no question, yes.
As we related earlier, beginning in 1976, the parties did not declare all of the monies they obtained from BSL, which they referred to as "NC" money. Ms. Turner was well aware of the practice, but blamed her husband for the conduct, suggesting that she merely did what she was told. In any event, appellant contends that the parties agreed in 1994 to cease the practice but, between 1995 and 1998, without her knowledge or permission, appellee resumed his conduct.
It is clear that, until 1994, appellant acted in concert with her husband in the NC scheme. The following colloquy is relevant:
[MR. TURNER'S ATTORNEY]: You knew when you made that allegation, did you not, Mrs. Turner, that the corporation had, in fact, been diverting funds -- that you and your husband had been diverting funds since the beginning of the business.
[APPELLANT]: I personally never diverted any funds.
[MR. TURNER'S ATTORNEY]: Your reason for that is that the procedure was from the NC money. Your husband would hand you amounts of cash; is that correct?
[APPELLANT]: That's correct.
[MR. TURNER'S ATTORNEY]: And then the amounts of cash that he gave you, ma'am, you apportioned that into two areas: One for employees and one for the Turners, correct?
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Maryland Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|