ILNews

Appeals court sends dissolution lawsuit back to trial court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The dissolution of a family-owned limited partnership was remanded to a Lake County court Tuesday after the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court erred in allowing some of the partners to pursue a derivative action.

In a 35-page unanimous opinion, Judge Patricia Riley ordered continuation of proceedings that began almost 18 years ago to dissolve Rueth Development Company. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded the Lake Superior Court’s grant of relief vacating the dismissal of dissolution proceedings involving partners in the land-development company.

“Because appellees’ claims do not satisfy the statutory requirements for a limited partnership derivative action and because the claims asserted by Harold (Rueth) in the amended application were brought in the context of winding up RDC’s affairs and his demand for an accounting, the trial court’s grant of relief is clearly erroneous,” Riley wrote.

The order also ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting relief under Trial Rule 60(B) and that the court did not abuse its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction on capital distribution and payment of attorney fees.




 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A sad end to a prolific gadfly. Indiana has suffered a great loss in the journalistic realm.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT