Free Notice of Filing Proposed Pretrial Order - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Exhibit
Case 2:04—cv—00384-ROS Document 528-7 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 1 of 4

1 Robert M. Frisbee (#018779)
FRISBEE & BOSTOCK, PLC
2 1747 Morten Ave. E., Suite 108 _
Phoenix, AZ 85020
3 Telephone: (602) 354-3689 »
Facsimile: (602) 266-7744
4 [email protected] ·
Attorneys for Defendants
5
6 .
7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Meritage Homes Corporation, et al.,
Case No. CV-04-0384-PHX-ROS
1() Plaintiffs,
EFENDANTS’ PROPOSED FINDINGS -
ll v.
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
12 Ricky Lee Hancock, et al.,
1 3 Defendants.
14 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
AND THIRD PARTY CLAIMS
15
16 l
17 Based upon the evidence in the record and the testimony provided by the parties at
lg trial before the bench, [and, mindful of the jury’s advisory answer to the unjust enrichment
19 question], the Court hereby issues the following findings of fact and conclusions of law
20 regarding Meritage’s unjust enrichment claim against Greg Hancock.
21 FINDINGS OF FACT
22 A. Findings of Fact Related to Olympic
23 I 1. Greg Hancock was employed as President of Meritage’s Hancock
24 Communities division during the summer and fall of 2001. 2
25 2. During the summer and fall of 2001, Greg Hancock was entitled to explore
‘ 26 personal investment opportunities in real property holdings, and to invest in them
2042074.1
Case 2:04—cv—00384-ROS Document 528-7 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 2 of 4

1 within limitations if he saw fit.
2 3. Hancock and Meritage negotiated the terms of Hancock’s employment
3 agreement, where in one draft Meritage wanted the right of first refusal for any
4 such investment opportunity.
5 4. The final draft of the employment agreement contained no right of first refusal
6 on the part of Meritage, and Hancock was not obligated to inform Meritage of any
7 such opportunity by contract or otherwise.
8 5. Hancock had no obligation to inform Meritage of his involvement in the
9 Olympic Properties matter, brought to him by his long—time friend, David
10 Comwall.
11 6. Greg Hancock was never involved in any manner with regard to those parcels
12 of land known as Westwind and Riata West.
13 7. In the fall of 2001, Greg Hancock was advised that further involvement with
14 Olympic Properties might constitute a violation of his restrictive covenants with
15 Meritage.
16 8. After Devon Properties decided to have no further involvement in Olympic
17 Properties due in part to the events of 9/ 1 1/01, Hancock departed from the
18 Olympic Properties matter and was never again involved therein.
19 9. Hancock walked away from millions of dollars of possible profit rather than
20 violate his restrictive covenants with Meritage.
21 10. Greg Hancock fully earned and was entitled to all he was paid by Meritage in
22 I the form of salary, bonuses and earn-outs.
23 B. Findings of Fact Related to the License Agreement
24 1 1. Greg Hancock granted Meritage an exclusive license to use the Hancock 5
25 name, "Hancock Communities," "Hancock Homes" and any derivative thereof
26 from May 31, 2001 to May 31, 2007.
Case 2:04—cv—00384-ROS Document 523-7 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 3 of 4

1 12. On February 13, 2004, Greg Hancock wrote Meritage stating that he was
2 terminating Meritage’s license.
3 13. Greg Hancock was entitled to cancel the license by reason of Meritage’s
4 express plan to reduce the Hancock name, a plan which had already been ,
l 5 announced by February 13, 2004, and because Meritage did not timely inform
6 Hancock regarding the status of his 2003 eam-out payment.
7 14. After he canceled the license, Greg Hancock assigned the "Hancock" name to
3 his brother, which he was entitled to do.
9 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
10 1. Greg Hancock’s conduct described above was entirely lawful.
ll 2. Meritage’s claims of unjust enrichment as to both the Olympic Properties
12 matter and the License Agreement were entirely frivolous. I
13 3. Greg Hancock is entitled to attorneys’ fees and expenses related to these
I 14 claims to be later determined by the Court.
15 4. The bringing of these claims constituted a violation of Rule ll by both
16 Meritage and its counsel.
17 I
18 Based on the foregoing and after a trial, -
19 I
20 IT IS ORDERED that Meritage take nothing by its pretended unjust enrichment
21 claims, and that Meritage and its counsel pay attorneys’ fees and expenses related to said
22 claims, together with Rule 11 sanctions to be determined by the Court.
23
24
25
26
ase 2:04—cv—00384-ROS Document 528-2 - Filed 08/31/2007 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 528-7

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 528-7

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 528-7

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 528-7

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 4 of 4