ILNews

COA split on whether company can repurchase stock

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed as to whether a company's attempt to exercise its option to repurchase stock had occurred in a timely manner under a shareholders' agreement.

The majority in Gatlin Plumbing & Heating Inc. v. Estate of Robert Yeager, No. 45A03-0907-CV-318, affirmed the denial of Gatlin's objection to the trial court order that directed the transfer of 63 shares of the company's capital stock held by the late Robert Yeager to his wife.

Under the shareholders' agreement for the company, Gatlin would have the option within 60 days after the death of a shareholder who isn't a decedent of Gatlin's owners or within 30 days after the appointment and qualification of an executor or administrator of the estate to purchase any or all of the stock. Robert died in October 2006; in June 2008, his widow, Musetta, filed an affidavit of entitlement saying Robert died testate but the will wasn't probated as the estate wasn't valued at more than $50,000, so the administration of the estate didn't occur. She also alleged the stock to be valued at $63,000. Musetta sought the transfer of the shares of stock to herself as trustee of two trusts. The trial court ordered the stock transferred to her.

Gatlin objected, arguing it should have had first opportunity to purchase the stock based on the shareholders' agreement. The trial court ruled against Gatlin, finding the company failed to exercise its legal rights in a timely manner.

Judges Carr Darden and James Kirsch found the shareholders' agreement didn't permit two separate opportunities for Gatlin to exercise its option to buy back its stock. They rejected the company's argument that the agreement let it exercise its second option to purchase stock after the trial court's issuance of the June 2008 order.

The majority also disagreed with Gatlin's argument that the trial court erred when it denied its objection to the order of transfer because averments within the estate's affidavit of entitlement as to the minimal value of the estate weren't supported by the evidence. When Gatlin filed its objection, it expressly asserted the amount of the estate's assets was under $50,000, wrote Judge Darden.

In addition, the company knew of Robert's death within days of it, its shareholders told Musetta in 2007 that it wouldn't buy the stock, and by the time the affidavits were filed in the estate in June 2008, the company hadn't taken any action to open an estate for purposes of asserting an interest in the stock, wrote the judge.

Judge Melissa May dissented, finding the majority's ruling would permit heirs to defeat the shareholders' agreement by delaying the opening of the estate for 60 days or more. Musetta's delay and apparent misrepresentation of the value of the estate shouldn't permit her to avoid the shareholders' agreement's provisions that say when Gatlin can purchase Robert's stock, she wrote.

Judge May would hold the company's 30-day period to exercise its option hadn't run because there hasn't yet been an appointment and qualification of an executor or administrator of the estate.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT