ILNews

Appeals court reverses summary judgment in business ownership dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals on Monday reversed summary judgment in favor of defendants in a dispute involving ownership of a business.

A panel unanimously reversed an order by Hendricks Circuit Judge Jeffrey V. Boles that granted summary judgment in Don Morris and Randy Coakes v. Brad Crain, Richard Redpath, Biosafe Engineering, LLC, Steven Biesecker, Tyler Johnson, Brandon Ross and Chris Sollars, No. 32C01-1003-PL-414.

Appeals Court Judge L. Mark Bailey wrote in a unanimous opinion that because the court “ordered the parties to implement a procedure inconsistent with summary judgment proceedings, summary judgment was improvidently granted.”

Boles issued an order dismissing several of the defendants from the lawsuit and ordering the remaining parties to submit documents within 10 days. Plaintiffs were ordered to state legal theories asserted against the defendants; defendants were ordered to detail the legal elements of the plaintiffs’ theories they assert had not been met.

Don Morris and Randy Coakes sued after selling a biological effluent destruction systems products company in which they had interest, along with other officials who had lesser interests. The suit was filed after Morris was fired by Steven Biesecker.

The plaintiffs alleged they had equitable interests and contractual rights in BioSafe Engineering and standing to bring a shareholder derivative action that would include seeking appointment of a receiver, an accounting and disgorgement of funds, and BioSafe’s dissolution.

The defendants denied that Richard Redpath and Brad Crain created a false document, made false representations, brought about the plaintiff’s ouster, diverted funds, or met with Morris to discuss ownership participation. The defendants also denied that Morris and Coakes held an equitable interest or that they had standing to bring a shareholder derivative claim.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT