Court: Records inspection needs testimony

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
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.

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. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.