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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  4. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  5. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?