Gomez v. Baio
Plaintiff Clyde Gomez and principal defendant Bruno Baio entered into an agreement wherein Baio sold half of his catering corporation to Gomez for $115,000. Gomez later sued, ultimately contending Baio misappropriated the $115,000 Gomez paid by placing it into his private account rather than the corporation’s capital account. Gomez grounded his claim on the theory that the $115,000 constituted startup capital for a new corporation, not payment to Baio for half of an existing corporation. After a bench trial, the trial court rejected Gomez’s theory, concluding the $115,000 constituted payment for half of an existing corporation owned by Baio. Judgment was entered for Baio accordingly. On appeal, Gomez contends the court’s ruling was unsupported by substantial evidence and constituted an abuse of discretion. We affirm.
Comments on Gomez v. Baio