Consumer Law, Warranties SOL for family stock purchase

[bci51]

Ten years ago I gave my brother in law money to invest in stock of a company he works for. He has paid me some money back over the years, but we had an oral contract for him to give me stock and he never has. He is divorcing my sister and I fear he will stop paying me anything. He has not said he won't, but he said I can't sue him due to the Statues of Limitations and Statues of Fraud. Is there any way around this? The SOL for oral contracts here is 4 years. I have copies of checks I gave him for the original investment, and copies of payment checks he has given me, but he says those are just loan repayments and denies we had a contract to give me stock.

I didn't give him a loan -- I gave him money to buy shares and he won't give them to me! He sometimes gives me money when he gets distributions, but not always. The stock has gone up 10x. Is there anything I can do? My sister said I should go on and sue him and that she will side with me but, again.

 

[dee_dub]

What state are you in?

 

[bci51]

We live in Florida.

 

[dee_dub]

If he didn't have to give you the stock for more than one year after you entered the agreement, then you will have a problem under Florida's Statute of Frauds. Your agreement is probably void because it was not to be performed within 1 year and was not in writing. The fact that he has given you something in exchange for whatever you gave him MIGHT amount to part performance that removes your oral contract from the effect of the Statute of Frauds. But even if successful, you're past the limitation period. Consult with an attorney, but I'm not optimistic.

 

[WebJunkie]

If he didn't have to give you the stock for more than one year after you entered the agreement, then you will have a problem under Florida's Statute of Frauds. Your agreement is probably void because it was not to be performed within 1 year and was not in writing. The fact that he has given you something in exchange for whatever you gave him MIGHT amount to part performance that removes your oral contract from the effect of the Statute of Frauds. But even if successful, you're past the limitation period. Consult with an attorney, but I'm not optimistic.

If the BIL has paid him any $$ in the last 4 years, the SOL should still be current, as it would have reset each time the BIL paid on the debt.

That's what I understand anyway.

How long ago was the last payment, BCI?

 

[dee_dub]

If the BIL has paid him any $$ in the last 4 years, the SOL should still be current, as it would have reset each time the BIL paid on the debt.

Good point. Doesn't that also depend on the payment giving rise to the reasonable inference that the debtor intends to renew their indebtedness? I can this being a bone of contention.

 

[WebJunkie]

Good point. Doesn't that also depend on the payment giving rise to the reasonable inference that the debtor intends to renew their indebtedness? I can this being a bone of contention.

I would think the simple nature of a payment would give that indication unless it was stated otherwise.

If I owe you $50, and walk up and hand you $20, then walk away -- wouldn't you assume I had given you that $20 to go towards the $50, as opposed to say, giving you the $20 as 'payment in full' or simply just because I like you?

I think, as a small claims matter (we don't know the amount involved here, so it's an assumption) any judge would see any payment without a specific comment like, maybe, "This is the last bit I'm going to give you" (and probably not even then), as a renewal of obligation.

 

[bci51]

Thanks so far.

He claims I made a family loan and the money he has given me is for the repayment of that loan. He denies he agreed to give me stock - only to repay the "loan". He has pretty much paid me back what I have invested over the years, but he says that since we have no contract and, thus, no repayment terms, he can pay me whenever and whatever he wants.

The first payment he gave me was just over 4 years after I gave him the money. The last time he gave me money was this summer. I usually got something every year or two in between. But, if I claim our oral agreement was for him to give me stock, and he instead has been paying me cash over the years instead, would that not indicate my acceptance that the money was indeed a loan, as he claims?

So, Junkie, I am worried that your arguement is too simple. By your analogy, if I gave someone money to buy 100 shares of stock and if, after 4 years they give me a few shares every few years after that, then I think you may have something. However, in this case, I have been accepting cash all of these years, not shares of stock. I can see him making the point that if I really thought we had a contract for him to give me stock that I should not have been accepting cash all of this time.