Need more? Try out  Advanced Search (20+ criteria)»

logo

Last Update

This profile was last updated on 7/17/1985 and contains contributions from the  Zoominfo Community.

is this you? Claim your profile.

Wrong Jack Zisblatt?

Jack Zisblatt

Owner

100%

GET ZOOMINFO GROW

+ Get 10 Free Contacts a Month

Please agree to the terms and conditions.

I agree to the  Terms of Service and  Privacy Policy. I understand that I will receive a subscription to ZoomInfo Grow at no charge in exchange for downloading and installing the ZoomInfo Contact Contributor utility which, among other features, involves sharing my business contacts as well as headers and signature blocks from emails that I receive.

THANK YOU FOR DOWNLOADING!

computers
  • 1.Download
    ZoomInfo Grow
    v sign
  • 2.Run Installation
    Wizard
  • 3.Check your inbox to
    Sign in to ZoomInfo Grow

I agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. I understand that I will receive a subscription to ZoomInfo Community Edition at no charge in exchange for downloading and installing the ZoomInfo Contact Contributor utility which, among other features, involves sharing my business contacts as well as headers and signature blocks from emails that I receive.

100%

Find other employees at this company (25,594)

Background Information

Employment History

Berle Manufacturing Company


Dispo Sales and Service Corporation


Lermer GmbH


Texas


Web References(1 Total References)


www.assetprotectionbook.com

Irene Zisblatt v. Jack Zisblatt, JACK ZISBLATT, APPELLEE From the 324th District Court of Tarrant County. Appellee, Jack Zisblatt, petitioned for divorce from his wife, appellant, Irene Zisblatt.Irene cross-petitioned against Jack for divorce and filed a third party action against Dispo Sales and Service Corporation (hereinafter Dispo), a corporation owned by Jack at the time the parties were married.Trial was to the court, which granted the petition for divorce but denied Irene's third party action against Dispo, and divided the property among the parties, holding there was no fraudulent transfer of community property, that Dispo was not the alter ego of Jack, and that the community was not entitled to any reimbursement from Dispo.Jack and Irene Zisblatt were married in 1971.Jack filed a petition for divorce in November of 1981, and trial began on August 16, 1983, and continued into September of 1983.On January 30, 1984, the trial judge signed the decree of divorce.He signed findings of fact and conclusions of law on May 23, 1984. Her points of error one through seven challenge the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the contractual relationship between Jack, Dispo and Lermer GmbH (hereinafter Lermer) and the trial court's disposition of Dispo's assets.Points of error eight through fourteen challenge the factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law which support the trial court's refusal to pierce the corporate veil of Dispo.Point of error fifteen, contained in appellant's second supplemental brief, challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's findings concerning the abandonment of a 1979 contract between Lermer, Jack and Dispo. Irene's entire appeal centers around the business relationship between Jack and Dispo and the contractual relationship between Jack, Dispo and Lermer.The majority of the trial involved testimony and documentary evidence concerning these business and contractual relationships.Irene attempted to show that the assets of Dispo were in fact community assets because almost every asset normally associated with a community estate was claimed by Jack to be owned by Dispo. Jack earns his living as a manufacturer's representative and during the marriage sold products manufactured by Lermer, Best Textile, Gamco, Gallo, AFC, Inter Mountain Design, American Business Group and B & H Container.These products are used primarily in the transportation industry, mostly by airlines and railroads.He also sold products used in the packaging industry and manufactured by Berles, V & F Foam, and Enterprise Corrugated. At the time of trial, Jack had worked for Berles for about 30 years and he had been selling Berles products on a commission basis for over twenty years.He estimated that, at the time of his marriage, his income was 95% from Berles sales and only 5% from sales associated with Dispo.At the time of separation, Jack estimated that such division of income had balanced out to approximately 50% from each source. All of the commission for sales of these various products were received by virtue of either written or oral contracts between the manufacturer and either Jack or Dispo.With the exception of those paid by Berles, all commissions paid directly to Jack were deposited into the account of Dispo regardless of the identity of the party to the contract.Dispo then paid a salary to Jack.Jack testified that all of the furnishings in the Arlington home were paid for and owned by Dispo.He further testified that all of the furniture was in Irene's possession and that it had a value of "about $12,000.00". The only automobile in the family was a 1979 Buick, however, Dispo leased two Lincoln Continentals, one of which Jack used when he was working from his home in Texas and the other was kept in the New Jersey area for his use in his frequent trips there.Levine's testimony indicates that Dispo paid all of the utilities at the Arlington home and for the home's maintenance as well.Dispo provided a medical program for employees and during their marriage Dispo paid $32,680.00 in medical expenses for Jack and Irene. Jack and Irene literally owned nothing more than the clothes on their backs.In the divorce decree, Irene was awarded her personal belongings, the 1979 Buick, the furniture in her possession, $25,000.00 to be paid by Dispo on the Zisblatts' loan of $48,000.00 for additions to the home, a townhouse (subject to indebtedness acquired by Irene on a lease purchase contract after Dispo sold the parties' home) $22,000.00 from an escrow account (of which $8,000.00 had already been paid to her), a note in the amount of $51,314.97 to be executed by Jack, and attorney's fees of $22,500.00 to be paid by Dispo.The award to Jack included his personal belongings, all Dispo stock and other interests in Dispo, Jack's Dispo employment benefits, all of Berles employment benefits, all of his insurance policies, all of the parties' interest in an investment of Compu-Med, Inc., and all interest of the parties in David Associates, a partnership. The decree of divorce further set aside to Dispo all contracts arising from or in connection with it, together with all funds, accounts and rights received or to be received from such contracts.Dispo further retained all funds and notes payable from the sale of the Arlington home.In making this disposition of property to Dispo, the trial court specifically refers to the contract(s) with Lermer. At trial and on appeal, the agreement, under which Jack sold Lermer products primarily to American Airlines and Pan American Airlines, was vigorously contended by Irene to be a community asset and equally vigorously contended to be a separate, corporate asset by Jack.At trial and on appeal, the agreement, under which Jack sold Lermer products primarily to American Airlines and Pan American Airlines, was vigorously contended by Irene to be a community asset and equally vigorously contended to be a separate, corporate asset by Jack.The first Lermer agreement dated December 19, 1979, is designated "Agreement between Jack Zisblatt and Lermer GmbH," and is signed by Jack, without reference to Dispo or his corporate office.On January 21, 1980, there was a two paragraph instrument titled "Agreement" between the same parties, containing a minor alteration of rate of commission on 1980 sales.On March 17, 1980, the same parties signed an "Addendum to Agreement between Jack Zisblatt and Lermer GmbH dated December 19, 1979."On September 21, 1980, the same parties signed an instrument reciting "This Addendum dated September 21, 1980, to the Agreement between Jack Zisblatt and Lermer GmbH dated December 19, 1979".None of these agreements mention Dispo and it is noteworthy that the September 21, 1980, instrument contains this recital: "In case of Jack Zisblatt's death Lermer GmbH['s] obligation on commission will be limited to orders placed prior to his death." Jack testified that in August or September of 1981, a dispute arose over Lermer's insistence that Jack service the sales he made for three years against warranty claims.He testified that he consulted an attorney regarding a possible lawsuit and was advised that the Lermer contract should be assigned from Jack Zisblatt to Dispo.The assignment took place after a resolution of Dispo to accept the assignment which resolution is dated January 1, 1980.Jack admitted that the purported assignment was not even prepared until sometime in late 1981 and was then back dated to January of 1980.We note the petition for divorce was filed in November of 1981. Thereafter, according to Jack, the original agreement was abandoned and a new, verbal agreement was negotiated between Lermer and Dispo, which was in effect at the time of trial.In summary, he claims that neither the agreement nor the commissions earned pursuant to the agreement were assets of the community because (1) he negotiated the original agreement as agent for Dispo, (2) the agreement was assigned by him to Dispo, (3) the original agreement was abandoned by both parties, (4) his assignment to Dispo cannot constitute fraudulent disposition of a community asset because when it was assigned it had no value because of the abandonment and (5) the "new" verbal contract was clearly between Lermer and Dispo. We deem it unnecessary to further analyze the Lermer


Similar Profiles

city

Browse ZoomInfo's Business
Contact Directory by City

city

Browse ZoomInfo's
Business People Directory

city

Browse ZoomInfo's
Advanced Company Directory