In addition to their boats, the family also owns a number of companies in the hospitality and entertainment segment, agriculture, professional services, golf, commercial real estate, and manufacturing and distribution. “We’ve been approached many times by potential partners, but never before have we connected both personally and professionally with a family that so closely identifies with Shepler’s commitment to first-class service for every guest, every day,” hawx boot reviews Shepler said. For best practices on efficiently downloading information from SEC.gov, including the latest EDGAR filings, visit sec.gov/developer. You can also sign up for email updates on the SEC open data program, including best practices that make it more efficient to download data, and SEC.gov enhancements that may impact scripted downloading processes. Please declare your traffic by updating your user agent to include company specific information.
Shepler and Thornock, however, argue that Altberger essentially purchased and paid for the townhouse, but caused title to be conveyed to his wife, and Altberger therefore can be considered the equitable and beneficial owner of the townhouse. Based on their version of the facts, Shepler and Thornock argue that a trust results in Altberger’s favor. Co. v. Stabler, 84 Colo. 64, 65, 268 P. 526, 526 (“Where one purchases and pays for real property, causing title to be conveyed to another without consideration, a trust results in favor of him who paid for the property.”). Both resulting and constructive trusts are implied trusts, where the intent of the parties to form a trust is not apparent. George Gleason Bogert & George Taylor Bogert, Trusts & Trustees § 451, at 225 (2d ed. rev.1991).
If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense. Retail Store – means any business facility that sells goods directly to the consumer whether for or not-for-profit, including, but not limited to, retail stores, restaurants, pharmacies, convenience and grocery stores, liquor stores, as well as seasonal and temporary businesses. Accordingly, I would reverse the court of appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court and I, therefore, dissent. After his termination, Mr. Shepler informed the State of California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) of the health and safety violations he discovered during his employment. These violations included, among other things, exposing CSU students, faculty, and visitors to asbestos, lead, mercury, and other hazardous materials.
Here we will provide you only interesting content, which you will like very much. “eaning should be ascertained by examining the documents from all corners and by considering all of the pertinent provisions, rather than by critical analysis of a single isolated provision.” Akandas, Inc. v. Klippel, 250 Kan. 458, 827 P.2d 37, 44 . An unambiguous contract must be enforced according to its plain, general, and common meaning in order to ensure that the parties’ intentions are enforced. Boos v. National Fed’n of State High School Ass’ns, 20 Kan.App.2d 517, 889 P.2d 797, 803 . In order to validate and process your request thoroughly, please submit your accurate information below.
The Vouchers shall be a credit against the actual pre-tax sale price of any item against which they are applied, after application of any other applicable discount. Each Voucher must be used in a single purchase transaction, and any portion of the Voucher not used in that purchase will be forfeited. The Vouchers shall not be redeemable for cash, and will not be replaced if lost, stolen, or damaged.
At trial, the property manager testified regarding the secretarial functions that the assistant performed, including coordinating lease signings. Plaintiff Sheplers, Inc. brings this diversity action against defendant Kabuto International Corporation, seeking a declaratory judgment and an accounting under a lease between the parties. The lease dispute revolves around a lease provision which allows defendant, the landlord, to charge tenants for their proportionate share of the common area maintenance costs. The case came before the court for a bench trial on April 29 and 30, 1999. 52, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.