ILNews

COA affirms dissolution of corporation embroiled in family dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A company owned by two brothers – one disabled and one terminally ill – was properly dissolved by the trial court over the disabled brother’s objections, the Indiana Court of Appeals held.

Timothy and Randall Enders inherited Enders & Longway Builders Inc. from their father in the 1980s and each owned 50 percent of the company. They had a buy-sell agreement, which strictly limited their ability to transfer their shares of the company and provided that upon the death of one brother, his shares passed automatically to the surviving brother, unless, among other occurrences, the corporation was dissolved.

Timothy Enders stopped actively working for the company around 2004 because of a disability but had some of his bills paid by the company. Randall Enders continued to work until he became terminally ill in 2012. Randall Enders sought to dissolve the corporation because it was no longer profitable. Timothy Enders told his brother to “get out of bed” in order to make the company profitable.

Randall Enders filed a petition for a judicial dissolution of the corporation, alleging that the directors and shareholders were deadlocked in the management of corporate affairs. The trial court retroactively granted the dissolution effective the date of the hearing, even though Randall Enders had died the day after the hearing and before the court ruled.

The business’s accountant Mark McNamee testified at trial about the company’s lack of profits, that Timothy Enders hadn’t performed any services for the company since 2004, and the deadlock between the brothers over dissolving the company disadvantaged shareholders and directors.

“In short, the evidence before the trial court established that the corporation was no longer profitable because of Timothy’s disability and Randall’s terminal illness. Consequently, the business of the corporation could no longer be conducted to the advantage of the shareholders, who were deadlocked as to whether to dissolve the corporation. Accordingly, under these circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it dissolved the corporation,” Judge John Baker wrote in Timothy S. Enders and Enders & Longway Builders, Inc. v. Debra Sue Enders as Personal Representative of the Estate of Randall Enders, 71A03-1211-PL-494.
 

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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT