Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Timothy S. ENDERS and Enders & Longway Builders, Inc., Appellants–Respondents, v. Debra Sue ENDERS as Personal Representative of the Estate of Randall Enders, Appellee–Petitioner.
OPINION ON REHEARING
In the instant case, appellant-defendant Timothy S. Enders appealed the trial court's decision to grant the petition of his now deceased brother, Randall Enders, to judicially dissolve the corporation that the brothers had inherited from their father. The brothers had been deadlocked in the management and corporate affairs for some time.
This Court concluded that the Buy–Sell Agreement that limited the transferability of corporate shares had terminated upon the dissolution of the corporation, which occurred one day before Randall passed away. Slip op. at 10. Additionally, we determined that the trial court had not erred by judicially dissolving the corporation insofar as the “evidence before the trial court established that the corporation was no longer profitable because of Timothy's disability and Randall's terminal illness.” Id. at 12.
Now Timothy petitions for rehearing, essentially arguing that this Court determined that the shares of the corporation were not jointly owned with the rights of survivorship at the time of Randall's death. We grant the petition to address his argument.
Neither the trial court nor, consequently, this Court, made any determinations regarding the effect of the shares certificates. Put another way, this Court only made determinations regarding the effect of the trial court's order dissolving the corporation and how this terminated the Buy–Sell Agreement. Slip op. at 10, 12. And because the trial court properly dissolved the corporation, the issue regarding the effect of the shares certificates should be resolved by the trial court during the winding up of the corporate affairs and distribution of the corporate assets.
Having addressed Timothy's argument on rehearing and finding it unpersuasive, we stand by our previous opinion.
BAKER, Judge.
MAY, J., and MATHIAS, J., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 71A03–1211–PL–494.
Decided: October 18, 2013
Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)