ILNews

COA rules in favor of previous shareholders in dispute with new owners

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Benton Circuit Court erred in denying partial summary judgment to the former shareholders of a garden accessories company, the Indiana Court of Appeals held. The court found the former shareholders were entitled to judgment on charges brought by the new owners of the company that the company was entitled to football tickets and a loan made to the previous owners.

In Whiskey Barrel Planters Co., Inc., n/k/a Diggs Enterprises, Inc., Robinson Family Enterprises, LLC, et al. v. American GardenWorks, Inc., and Millennium Real Estate Investment, LLC, No. 04A03-1011-PL-582, American GardenWorks and Millennium Real Estate Investment entered into an agreement to purchase Whiskey Barrel from Ralph and Ann Robinson. The agreement said AGW would buy “substantially all of the machinery, equipment, inventory, goodwill, assets, real estate, paraphernalia and trade name of the Business, Business Real Estate, and Residence.” The agreement also outlined the types of assets purchased, which included the accounts receivable of Whiskey Barrel.

AGW filed a complaint against Whiskey Barrel, alleging 13 counts – the two at issue are Count III, alleging that AGW was entitled to collect as assets the $327,000 in loans by Whiskey Barrel to the Robinsons that weren’t included as accounts receivable but were shown on the balance sheet and tax returns of Whiskey Barrel as “other current assets”; and Count VII, where AGW claims it can collect as assets the 2008 Purdue football season tickets that were purchased by Ralph Robinson with Whiskey Barrel funds.

Whiskey Barrel counterclaimed, which included whether AGW converted personal property belonging to the Robinsons by not allowing them on the premises to retrieve it and whether it’s entitled to replevin on the converted personal property. The trial court ruled in favor of AGW on its complaint and against Whiskey Barrel on its counterclaims.

The Court of Appeals reversed, noting the language in the agreement states “substantially all,” which would indicate “most but not all of the assets.” The agreement could have stated it was for all of the assets – which would have included the shareholder loans and the football tickets – but did not, wrote Judge Carr Darden. Also, the balance sheet attached to AGW’s complaint clearly shows that the term “accounts receivable” as used in the agreement doesn’t include the shareholder loans, the COA found.

The trial court erred in determining that AGW acquired the Robinsons' personal property under the terms of the agreement and in finding that the couple abandoned any claims to their property by not removing it within a specific timeframe.

The trial court awarded AGW nearly $25,000 in attorney fees and costs; the judges remanded for the trial court to determine whether that award amount was proper.

 

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT