ILNews

Shares of dissolved corporation is matter to be handled by trial court, COA rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A dispute between two brothers over corporate shares left from the dissolution of the family business got a rehearing by the Indiana Court of Appeals, but no reversal.

In July 2013, Timothy Enders had appealed the trial court’s granting of the petition by his recently deceased brother, Randall Enders, to dissolve Enders & Longway Builders Inc., the business the brothers had inherited from their father.

At that time, the Court of Appeals concluded the buy-sell agreement that limited the transfer of corporate shares had been terminated when the corporation was dissolved one day before Randall’s death.

Timothy petitioned for a rehearing on the grounds that the Court of Appeals had ruled the shares were not jointly owned with rights of survivorship at the time Randall died.

However, at the rehearing of Timothy S. Enders and Enders & Longway Builders, Inc. v. Debra Sue Enders as Personal Representative of the Estate of Randall Enders, 71A03-1211-PL-494, the COA stated it had not made any determinations about the shares certificates.

The Court of Appeals asserted it only ruled that the trial court properly dissolved the corporation. Therefore, the issue of the shares certificates is something to be resolved by the trial court during the closing of corporate affairs and distribution of corporate assets.

Writing for the court, Judge Michael Barnes stated, the COA stands by its previous opinion.


 

 

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 need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT