ILNews

Law firm not entitled to summary judgment on complaint seeking payment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Finding that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether an employee was acting on his own behalf or on behalf of his company when he sought a law firm’s services, the Indiana Court of Appeals ordered more proceedings on the firm’s complaint for payment.

In Ruben Pazmino v. Bose McKinney & Evans, LLP, 49A02-1206-CC-499, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP did legal work for Buena Vista Realty Group LLC from February through July 2008 at the request of Ruben Pazmino. The company was administratively dissolved on April 24, 2008. Bose was never paid for its work and filed a lawsuit against Buena Vista and against Pazmino for the services it performed after Buena Vista was dissolved.

Both Pazmino and the firm moved for summary judgment. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Bose and ordered Pazmino to pay total judgment of $11,174.20. On appeal, Pazmino claimed he was only an employee of Buena Vista and not personally liable for the LLC’s obligations. Bose, on the other hand, is trying to hold Pazmino responsible for his own act of personally requesting services after Buena Vista dissolved.

Neither Bose nor Pazmino established as a matter of law that either party was entitled to summary judgment, as Bose hasn’t shown Pazmino secured its services on his own behalf and Pazmino hasn’t shown that he was just an employee and not an interested party in Buena Vista.

The Court of Appeals went on to address additional legal arguments raised by Bose: that Pazmino is personally liable for requesting services not associated with winding up the LLC and that Pazmino was not statutorily authorized to wind up or bind Buena Vista post-dissolution.

The judges held that regardless of the nature of the work performed by Bose, Buena Vista continued to exist as a principal that could be bound by the acts of its agents. They also believed that the reference to personal liability of members in Indiana Code 23-18-9-3(b)(2) is intended to clarify that, even upon dissolution, an LLC, not its members, remains responsible for the LLC’s obligations.

“Thus, where Pazmino acted within the scope of the authority conferred by Buena Vista, Bose’s remedy is with Buena Vista, not Pazmino,” Judge Michael Barnes wrote.

The case is remanded for further proceedings.

 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT