ILNews

Outside accounting ordered in LLC dissolution

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a judgment in favor of one of the owners of a dissolved LLC, finding the trial court erred when it entered judgment against the other owner personally without ordering an outside accounting of the company's finances.

In Jeff Perkins v. James R. Brown, No. 49A02-0806-CV-569, Jeff Perkins appealed a judgment entered against him for $155,175, which represented 50 percent of the net profits and retained earnings of his and James Brown's executive search firm, Kessler Advisor LLC. When the company was formed, Perkins handled business development, and Brown handled search work, sent invoices to clients, and managed the accounting needs.

Brown objected to Perkins' desire to give greater compensation for business development instead of the even split between their two job duties. Actions were taken to keep him from having access Kessler's business, accounting, and customer information.

Brown filed a complaint against Perkins and Kessler, requesting declaratory judgment as to the ownership percentages, an equitable accounting of the company, and that it is dissolved with the net remaining assets distributed according to the ownership percentages.

Brown submitted evidence at trial that he believed Kessler's total income was nearly $388,000 and that usually 20 percent of that was used to cover operating expenses. Judgment was granted in favor of Brown and against Kessler and Perkins, awarding Perkins and Brown $155,175 each. Perkins filed a motion to correct error, which was denied. Brown's motion to amend the pleadings was granted.

The trial court erred in determining the amount of damages in the dissolution of Kessler without ordering an outside accounting of the company's finances, wrote Judge James Kirsch. There was no evidence presented at trial of what the actual finances of the company were prior to the dissolution, what income it actually received or what the expenses were at this time.

Without any direct evidence, the trial court couldn't accurately determine if Kessler had all the money it was owed from outstanding invoices, who its creditors were, and if 20 percent would have covered all the expenses, wrote the judge. Plus, the trial court was unable to determine whether Perkins made any distributions during this period of time that would have created personal liability.

Asset distribution upon the ending of an LLC must be distributed according to Indiana Code Section 23-18-9-6, but without the outside accounting, the Court of Appeals can't tell the assets were distributed according to the statute.

The appellate court reversed the denial of Perkins' motion to correct error and remanded with instructions for the trial court to order and oversee an outside accounting to determine the proper distribution to Kessler's creditors as well as to Brown and Perkins. The trial court also shall make an appropriate entry of damages due to each party, including any determination of personal liability of Perkins under the Indiana Business Flexibility Act.

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT