Hobby Box IV, Inc. v. Associated Independent Distributors, Inc.
Hobby Box IV, Inc. v. Associated Independent Distributors, Inc.
Opinion of the Court
Appellants, three businesses
Barry Taylor was the moving force and primary owner of Hobby Box, Inc., the central force behind a hobby retail franchising operation. Taylor and his wife owned Hobby Box Marketing, Inc., the franchiser, and controlled H & B Group, Inc. which owned stock in and managed certain stores through a trust for Taylor’s children. Through these corporations Tay
AID was a toy and hobby distributor and supplied inventory to appellant through Hobby Box, Inc. Hobby Box, Inc. would buy in quantity and then “sell” to the franchise operations.
After approximately $700,000 in credit was extended to Hobby Box, Inc., AID required the franchise operations to execute individual security agreements pledging all inventory and non-inventory collateral to secure up to $30,000 each before additional credit would be made available. Taylor, on behalf of the various franchise operations including appellants, executed such security agreements. AID subsequently extended credit to $1,000,000; then to $3,000,000. Shipments were then stopped and a default occurred at $2,633,-827.08. This action ensued.
Appellants claim they are not responsible for the debt of Hobby Box, Inc. because:
1. They did not guarantee such debt;
2. They were not a debtor of AID under the security agreements because they owed no antecedent debt; and
3. Even if Taylor could bind them as a guarantor of Hobby Box, Inc.’s debts, such guarantee was not in writing and thus violated the Statute of Frauds.
After reviewing the record, we disagree and affirm the trial court.
There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the conclusion that Taylor was the president or managing agent
AFFIRMED.
. Although the names of these businesses include the designation "Inc.", the trial judge found there was no believable evidence offered to prove that, in fact, they were independently incorporated. Each appellant represents an individual Hobby Box store.
.Although Taylor asserts some of the stores were sold outright to others, there is little evidence in the record to support this. There is no claim that any of appellants are wholly owned by outsiders.
. Appellants in their brief refer to Taylor as the "managing agent” for some 35 of the individual Hobby Box stores.
. Not referring to the legal status of incorporating but relating generally to a "unified body of individuals.”
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.