ILNews

Court won't recognize non-fiduciary liability

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana doesn’t allow people to sue when they’ve had corporate opportunities taken away by business partners who’ve gone off and formed new partnerships with others, and the state Court of Appeals declined to decide whether non-fiduciaries can be held liable for usurping corporate opportunity.

A three-judge appellate panel made that decision in Victor J. DiMaggio III v. Elias Rosario, et al., No. 64-A03-1009-PL-500, a case out of Porter Superior Court involving a Lake County business relationship that went bad.

Victor DiMaggio and Elias Rosario were shareholders in Galleria Reality Corporation in Lake County starting in 1997, and they remained in that real estate business through 2003 when Rosario and two others began Liberty Lake Estates  in Porter County. In March 2008, DiMaggio filed a complaint against Rosario and the other LLE shareholders claiming they’d usurped a corporate opportunity from the original business Galleria and caused damage to DiMaggio.

The suit claimed Rosario owed a fiduciary duty to DiMaggio, his fellow shareholder in Galleria, and that the initial business should have had the chance to develop real estate in Porter County prior to Rosario forming the LLE with the others and servicing that untapped market.

Porter Superior Judge William Alexa granted the requests from Rosario and the appellees to dismiss DiMaggio’s complaint on the grounds it failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. DiMaggio appealed, asking the Court of Appeals to determine that a shareholder’s fiduciary duty requires he be held liable if he usurps a corporate opportunity in a non-fiduciary manner.

DiMaggio contended that notion is supported, at least by inference, from the decision in Dreyer & Reinbold v. AutoXchange.com, 771 N.E. 2d 764 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), where the court addressed a partially related topic on corporate opportunity.

But the appellate court disagreed with that caselaw interpretation, saying Dreyer didn’t stand for the proposition that Indiana recognizes a claim that non-fiduciaries can be held liable for usurping corporate opportunity. Specifically, DiMaggio wanted the court to require that in order for a non-fiduciary to be held jointly and severely liable with a fiduciary of a corporation, that person must act knowingly when he or she joins with or aids someone in breaching that existing fiduciary relationship.

“Without deciding at this time whether Indiana should adopt DiMaggio’s proposed cause of action, we conclude that, even if we were to recognize the cause of action existed in Indiana, DiMaggio’s complaint did not state a claim upon which relief can be granted against the Appellees,” Judge James Kirsch wrote, referring to the lack of intentional behavior or knowledge that might be required.

The broader question remains for another day, and the lower court ruling is affirmed.
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT