ILNews

Court: Records inspection needs testimony

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a trial court decision to allow a couple to inspect a company's financial statements, finding the trial court relied only on an affidavit - and not testimony - to allow the inspection.

In Bacompt Systems, Inc. v. Angelina Peck and David C. Peck, No. 29A02-0708-CV-646, the Pecks made separate written requests to view Bacompt's financial documents. The Pecks, who lived in Pennsylvania, owned approximately 25 percent of the company's stock. Prior to David C. Peck's termination as president of Bacompt in May 2006, Angelina filed for divorce in Pennsylvania.

David C. Peck made his request to Bacompt for the financial documents to see if Buddy C. Stanley, the principal shareholder of Bacompt, had misappropriated funds. Stanley had filed a suit in federal court accusing David of writing unauthorized Bacompt checks for his and Angelina's personal use. Angelina requested Bacompt's financial documents to try to value her stock holdings in the company.

Initially, Bacompt refused to hand over the documents, citing David didn't specify his purpose for the documents in his written request and the company's belief that Angelina's request was untimely. Later, the company agreed to hand over certain documents, but would not turn over the KSM report, which is prepared by the company's outside accountant and included an analysis relating to the checks that are of issue in the federal lawsuit as well as a review of expenses charged to Bacompt from 2003 through 2005.

The Pecks then filed a petition for inspection of corporate records, which the trial court granted based on an affidavit submitted from Angelina with the pre-hearing brief that stated she needed to inspect the records to value her stock in her pending divorce.

Bacompt appealed, stating the Pecks didn't prove under Indiana Code 23-1-52-2 that their demand for inspection was in good faith and for a proper purpose, as well as the trial court erred in allowing the KSM report in the inspection of documents.

The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion when the trial court accepted Angelina's affidavit after a motion was filed. However, the appellate court did find the trial court erred in relying on Angelina's affidavit to enter its judgment.

Pursuant to Trial Rule 43(A), testimony was required to be given in open court in order to allow Bacompt the right to cross-examine and to observe witnesses' demeanor and determine credibility, wrote Judge Cale Bradford.

"In that Angelina's affidavit was introduced into evidence in lieu of her testimony for purposes of establishing - as a matter of fact - the Pecks's purpose in seeking to inspect Bacompt's corporate records, we conclude this was an error," he wrote.

In regards to Bacompt's appeal, the KSM report should not be included for inspection; the appellate court ruled the trial court should determine that on remand. Since there was no factual record in this case demonstrating a proper purpose, Judge Bradford wrote it was unnecessary for the appellate court to address this issue.
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. I was looking through some of your blog posts on this internet site and I conceive this web site is rattling informative ! Keep on posting . dfkcfdkdgbekdffe

  2. Don't believe me, listen to Pacino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bC9w9cH-M

  3. Law school is social control the goal to produce a social product. As such it began after the Revolution and has nearly ruined us to this day: "“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States which is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings. As most public men [i.e., politicians] are, or have been, legal practitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities of their profession into the management of public affairs. The jury extends this habitude to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, in some measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that at last the whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate.” ? Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  4. Attorney? Really? Or is it former attorney? Status with the Ind St Ct? Status with federal court, with SCOTUS? This is a legal newspaper, or should I look elsewhere?

  5. Once again Indiana has not only shown what little respect it has for animals, but how little respect it has for the welfare of the citizens of the state. Dumping manure in a pond will most certainly pollute the environment and ground water. Who thought of this spiffy plan? No doubt the livestock industry. So all the citizens of Indiana have to suffer pollution for the gain of a few livestock producers who are only concerned about their own profits at the expense of everyone else who lives in this State. Shame on the Environmental Rules Board!

ADVERTISEMENT