ILNews

COA finds man was shareholder at time of stock sale

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A dispute between family members over stock of the family company led to the Indiana Court of Appeals addressing an issue involving shareholders and revocable trusts that hasn’t yet been addressed in Indiana: whether the settlor, who places shares of stock into a revocable inter vivos trust and names himself as trustee and beneficiary, retains his shareholder status.

At issue in Andrew C. Kesling, individually and as Trustee of the Andrew C. Kesling Trust v. Peter C. Kesling, et al., No. 45A03-1106-PL-271, is whether Peter Kesling was able, under the shareholder agreement of TP Orthodontics Inc., tosell shares of his stock in 2004 to his son, Andrew Kesling. At the time of the sale, Andrew Kesling, who was a shareholder in TPO, had placed his stock into a revocable trust which named himself as a beneficiary and trustee. TPO shareholders had an agreement that restricted the shareholder’s ability to transfer shares of the company to non-shareholders.  

Andrew Keslings siblings initiated a lawsuit, in which they asserted they were each entitled to purchase certain shares of TPO stock. Peter Kesling’s cross-claim against his son is the subject of this appeal, in which Peter Kesling argued that he later learned Andrew Kesling had transferred his shares of the company to a trust before the 2004 sale, so he couldn’t have sold his shares to Andrew Kesling because he wasn’t technically a shareholder. The trial court found the siblings’ claims were moot because it was returning the stock Peter Kesling sold back to him because the court found Andrew Kesling wasn’t a shareholder at the time of the sale.

The COA found the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that Peter Kesling was entitled to rescission of the stock purchase agreements. The judges cited the Indiana Supreme Court decision in Marshall Cnty. Tax Awareness Comm. v. Quivey, 780 N.E.2d 380, 383 (Ind. 2002),  in which an individual asserted property rights where the property was held in a revocable trust, the shareholder agreement of TPO, and the Internal Revenue Code to find that Andrew Kesling, not the trust, was the owner of the stock and therefore a shareholder.

There is no question that Andrew Kesling is the beneficial and record owner of the shares and the trust makes clear that he is entitled to vote the shares, wrote Judge Elaine Brown. Because Andrew Kesling’s trust declaration didn’t extinguish his rights as a shareholder of TPO, the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered rescission in favor of Peter Kesling.

The judges didn’t address the siblings’ claims on appeal, but remanded for the trial court to rule on the claims they raised, which include breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud.

 

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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT