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. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT