ILNews

COA reverses treble damages in business deal gone bad

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court erred in awarding treble damages to an Indiana man who entered into a business venture with a North Carolina couple that ended up costing him more than $1 million in money owed to him, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded Thursday.

E.J. Agnew and Golden-AGI LLC sued Joel and Ruby Bowden and their companies, Golden Companies Inc. and Golden Purchasing and Staffing, after learning that he was owed profits from the Bowdens from a joint business venture they entered into to develop business with U.S. auto and truck producers and arrange for the production and delivery of parts from overseas manufacturers.

They entered into the 50/50 ownership deal in 2004 that created Golden AGI LLC. They were to split profits from a deal with a manufacturer in India, but Agnew later earned the Bowdens, who lived in North Carolina, used money from the India deal to pay off debts in a separate deal supplying parts to Cummins. He also learned that Golden AGI income and expenses were comingled with that of other Golden entities and that the Bowdens never intended to operate GAGI as a functional business entity.

Agnew sued for money damages in 2009; the Bowdens sought dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, which was denied. At the bench trial, Agnew’s expert David DeWitt, a licensed CPA, testified regarding the profits derived from the India deal. He said Agnew’s share was at least $1,754,278, which is the amount the trial court awarded to Agnew. The trial court also awarded treble damages based on the conclusion the Bowdens committed conversion. The Bowdens appealed.

“The Bowdens’ wrongful failure to distribute net revenue in accordance with the 50/50 agreement constitutes a failure to pay a debt, not criminal conversion. The money withheld from Agnew was not a separate, specifically identifiable chattel,” Judge Ezra Friedlander wrote in Joel Bowden, Ruby Bowden, Golden Companies, Inc., and Golden Purchasing and Staffing, Inc. v. E.J. Agnew and Golden-AGI, LLC, 49A05-1301-PL-23. As such, the trial court erred in awarding treble damages under I.C. 34-24-3-1. The judges ordered the judgment reduced to the original $1.75 million awarded to Agnew.

The Court of Appeals found the trial court’s reliance on DeWitt’s expert testimony regarding damages was not erroneous and that the Indiana courts have personal jurisdiction over the North Carolina couple in their individual capacities.
 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT