ILNews

Court correctly ruled man with terminated employment contract could retire

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An employment contract between a certified public accountant and his employer did not prohibit the CPA from retiring from his position after the company announced it would not be renewing his contract, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded Wednesday.

Bruce Buchan, who worked as a CPA for an independent accounting firm, had performed services for Dennis Tippmann Sr. and his son. Later, the Tippmanns decided to hire Buchan to work for Cherokee Family Limited, various business entities owned by the Tippmann family.

Buchan began working in 2005 for the company, but an employment contract wasn’t signed until December 2007. The terms of the contract said Buchan would work for five-year periods, with either party able to not renew the contract by providing a 90-day written notice prior to the expiration of the current term. The contract was made retroactive so that Buchan’s first five-year term would expire Dec. 31, 2010. In September 2010, Cherokee informed Buchan it would not renew his contract. Buchan in October informed the company he would be retiring effective Dec. 31, 2010. Cherokee sent a letter to him saying it did not recognize his ability to retire after receipt of the notice of non-renewal and the company considered him to be employed on Dec. 31, 2010.

Buchan sued, alleging he did not receive timely compensation for accrued paid vacation days and the company breached the contract by not paying him the remaining portion of his bonus upon retirement. Cherokee counterclaimed alleging, among other things, breach of duty of loyalty and  breach of contract. Buchan filed for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether he could retire; the trial court ruled in his favor.

On interlocutory appeal in Cherokee Air Products, Inc., Cherokee Family Limited Partnership, Tippmann Industrial Products, Inc., Dennis Tippmann, Sr. Family Partnership, LLP, and Tippmann Farms, LLC v. Bruce E. Buchan, 02A05-1312-PL-635, the Court of Appeals affirmed.

“The trial court correctly concluded that Buchan was entitled to retire. …According to the terms of the contract, that notice merely notified Buchan that his contract would not be renewed at the end of the year for an additional term. The notice of non-renewal did not affect Buchan’s employment status for the remainder of the contract term. He remained employed under the contract, with all its rights and obligations until the term expired. Had Cherokee wished to terminate Buchan’s employment, Paragraph 4 was the appropriate provision in that circumstance. It is uncontradicted that Buchan was still employed and continued to work for Cherokee until the end of business on December 30, 2010,” Senior Judge William Garrard wrote.
 

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