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.














Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.