David Marsh defends trips he took at company's expense

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Don Marsh's son David, who served under his father as president of Marsh Supermarkets Inc, traveled widely, often on the company jet, just as his father did.

And like his dad, David Marsh defended most of those travels around the United States — and to such far-reaching locations at Cambodia, South Africa, Tahiti and Vietnam — as essential to the business of Marsh Supermarkets.

“Every time I used [the plane] I had a time constraint, and my time was valuable to the company,” David told jurors late Tuesday afternoon.

Called as a witness for Marsh Supermarkets, David Marsh testified for about an hour in the civil trial of Don Marsh before Judge Sarah Evans Barker ended proceedings for the day.

But not before she scolded him for elusive answers. He often responded that “it’s not my area of responsibility” when pressed on various matters by Marsh Supermarkets lawyer David Herzog.

“You’re a smart man,” Barker told him. “You can hear.”

David Marsh is expected to be the final witness called by Marsh Supermarkets in its suit against his father. The locally based supermarket chain is seeking to recoup more than $3 million in what it alleges are personal expenses Don charged to the company.

David Marsh served as president and chief operating officer of Marsh Supermarkets from 2002 until February 2006, about seven months before Florida-based Sun Capital Partners bought the company.

While working for the grocery chain, David Marsh traveled the globe, sometimes with his wife and children, to attend organizational meetings or business outings that Marsh Supermarkets claims had no benefit to the company.

He also had Marsh Supermarkets pick up the tab for a lease on a new BMW and $25,500 in financial planning services because he believed his contract with the company allowed for it.

“It’s an open-ended clause,” David Marsh said after pointing out a section in his contract that he thinks entitled him to the perks.

David Marsh said he and his father often discussed business while on hunting and fishing trips to Alaska and South Dakota. When Herzog asked why they didn't instead go to an Arby's across the street from company headquarters, David said, "It’s not the same as getting out of town.".

Marsh Supermarkets launched a legal fight against David in 2006 after he sued the company, alleging it shorted him $102,000 on his $2.1 million severance package. The company shot back that he had used the company “as his personal checkbook,” submitting expenses from family trips, and should have to repay more than $750,000. The parties reached a confidential settlement in 2007.

In earlier testimony Tuesday, jurors heard from Patrick Calhoun, a former IRS special agent hired by Marsh Supermarkets to investigate Don Marsh's expenses. His job was to identify business and non-business expenses from 1999 to 2006, to determine whether they were "ordinary and necessary."

Cahoun found more than $3.3 million in expenses he said had no benefit to the company.

Here’s a sample:

—$927,210 for “nondeductible outings” that included taxidermy services and hunting licenses.

—$397,616 for professional organization costs that included trips to Young Presidents’ Organization and World Presidents’ Organization meetings.
—$625,776 for Marsh family travel expenses.

—$159,169 for “cultural” expenses that included hotel charges for Nadia Kovarskaya, the head of a Russian ice ballet with whom Don Marsh had an affair.

—$315,415 in estate planning services.

—$120,640 in nondeductible credit card expenses that included the purchase of several pairs of boots at an Alaskan boot store.

—$135,468 in “other” nondeductible expenses, such as gifts for weddings.

—$64,871 in daily per-diem charges that Marsh Supermarkets says Don Marsh collected while also billing expenses to the company.

—$21,500 for cash advances Don Marsh took to spend on trips to such places as Cuba, where credit cards aren’t accepted.

The trial is expected to conclude Friday.

This story originally ran in IBJ Daily, a sister publication of Indiana Lawyer.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.