Bill and Monica own an S corp with no written agreement between them as to salary, sharing of profits, etc, but historically they shared all salary, profits and perqs equally.
Hillary then makes a claim against Bill in the family court for support, equitable distribution interest in the entity, fees, etc
In response to Hillary's application, Bill decides to "disappear", leaving Monica to run the operation alone without any indication as to when he would return.
Hillary then runs into court and gets an order requiring the business entity to turn over Bill's salary and his 50% share of the profits to an escrow account pending further order of the court
The entity responds to the court order suggesting that the court has no right to require it to pay over any amount of salary or share of the profits to an escrow account since Monica is now running the operation alone and she has decided to discontinue any payment of benefits, salary, etc to or on behalf of Bill. According to Monica, she consulted with Alec Haig, who told her that since Bill was not present, she had the right to change the 50/50 arrangement and no longer pay out the salary, etc on Bills behalf.
Alternatively, A. Haig suggested that Monica hire a replacement for Bill in his absence (at a significantly reduced salary) and that she can keep the balance of Bills share of the salary for herself.
Since the valuation of this entity is in dispute and Bill and Monica had been 50/50 partners in it deriving an equal sharing of all benefits up until the entry of the court order, does Monica have the right to unilaterally change the benefits paid out to or on behalf of the two partners?
Without a written agreement in hand, can Monica's decision Trump the court order?
------------------------------
Richard Diamond
Managing Partner
Diamond & Diamond P.A.
Millburn, New Jersey
973-379-9292
[email protected]------------------------------