FBI Farms, Inc. v. Moore
Decision Date | 13 November 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 76S03-0209-CV-491.,76S03-0209-CV-491. |
Citation | 798 N.E.2d 440 |
Parties | F.B.I. FARMS, INC., Ivan Burger, Freddy L. Burger, Susan Burger Eash, and Linda Moore, Appellants (Defendants below), v. Birchell MOORE, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
J. Richard Ransel, Jacob S. Frost, Elkhart, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
Leonard E. Eilbacher, Fort Wayne, IN, Attorney for Appellee. BOEHM, Justice.
We hold that as a general proposition, restrictions on corporate share transfers may require approval of the transfer by the corporation's Board of Directors, at least in a family-owned corporation. Although generally valid against purchasers with notice of them, such restrictions may not prevent a creditor from foreclosing a lien on the shares, but a purchaser who buys at a foreclosure sale with notice of the restrictions acquires the shares subject to the restrictions. We also hold that if shares are subject to a right of first refusal, and the holder of the right has notice of the foreclosure, the holder cannot exercise the right against a purchaser at a foreclosure sale after the purchaser has taken title to the shares without objection from the holder of the rights.
Factual and Procedural Background
F.B.I. Farms, Inc., was formed in 1976 by Ivan and Thelma Burger, their children, Linda and Freddy, and the children's spouses. Each of the three couples transferred a farm and related machinery to the corporation in exchange for common stock in the corporation. At the time, Birchell Moore was married to Linda. Linda and Moore deeded a jointly-owned 180-acre farm to F.B.I., and 2,507 shares were issued to Moore and one to Linda. These 2,508 shares represented approximately fourteen percent of the capitalization of F.B.I.
In 1977, the Board of Directors of F.B.I. consisted of Moore, Ivan, Freddy and Linda. The minutes of a 1977 meeting of the Board recite that the following restrictions on the transfer of shares were "adopted":
Linda's marriage to Moore was dissolved in 1982. As part of the dissolution proceedings, Linda was awarded all of the F.B.I. shares and Moore was awarded a monetary judgment in the amount of $155,889.80, secured by a lien on Linda's shares.
F.B.I. filed for bankruptcy protection in 1989 and emerged from Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in 1991. Moore's judgment against Linda remained unsatisfied, and in April 1998 he sought a writ of execution of his lien. The corporation, through its counsel, responded with a letter to Moore's counsel demanding payment of the $250,700 subscription price for the 2,507 shares that were initially issued to Moore but had since been transferred to Linda. Moore obtained the writ of execution in June 1999, and in October 1999 the corporation, again through counsel, sent a letter to Moore purporting to cancel the 2,507 shares for failure to pay the subscription price. A sheriff's sale went forward and in February 2000 Moore purchased all 2,924 shares owned by Linda at the time for $290,450.67.
In December 2000 Moore instituted this suit against F.B.I., its shareholders, and Linda seeking a declaratory judgment that the attempted cancellation of the shares by the defendants was invalid, that Moore properly retained ownership of the shares, and that the shares were unencumbered by restrictions and were freely transferable. Moore also sought dissolution of the corporation, injunctive relief against alleged fraudulent practices by the defendants, and monetary damages. The trial court granted Moore's motion for partial summary judgment, finding (1) the shares were not "lawfully cancelled"; (2) Moore was the "lawful owner" of the disputed stock; (3) the restriction in paragraph one of the agreement requiring approval by F.B.I.'s directors for a share transfer was "manifestly unreasonable"; and, (4) the provision in paragraph four of the agreement giving "blood members" the option to purchase after the corporation and shareholders was "manifestly unreasonable" and unenforceable. The trial court's findings included those rendering the order appealable as a final judgment pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 54(B).
On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the transfer restrictions barred only voluntary transfers. F.B.I. Farms, Inc. v. Moore, 769 N.E.2d 688, 696 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002). Because the sheriff's sale effectuated an involuntary transfer of Linda's shares, Moore, as the purchaser of the shares, acquired the shares. Id. at 692. Although the court found that future transfers of stock would be subject to the restrictions in Moore's hands, it also affirmed the trial court's finding that the two disputed restrictions were manifestly unreasonable. Id. at 695-96. The court reasoned that the several tumultuous years of dispute between the parties rendered the restriction requiring director approval before transfer unreasonable, and the reference to "blood members" of the family was sufficiently ambiguous that that restriction was unenforceable. Id. at 694-96. We granted transfer.
Standard of Review
To support an order granting a motion for summary judgment, the designated evidence must show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Ind. Trial Rule 56(C). On appeal, the standard of review of a grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment is the same as that used in the trial court. Bemenderfer v. Williams, 745 N.E.2d 212, 215 (Ind.2001).
Most of the issues in this case are resolved by the Indiana statute governing share transfer restrictions. Indiana Code section 23-1-26-8 essentially mirrors Model Business Corporation Act § 6.27, which authorizes restrictions on the transfer of shares. The Indiana statute reads as follows:
Corporate shares are personal property. At common law, any restriction on the power to alienate personal property was impermissible. Doss v. Yingling, 95 Ind.App. 494, 500, 172 N.E. 801, 803 (1930). Despite this doctrine, Indiana, like virtually all jurisdictions, allows corporations and their shareholders to impose restrictions on transfers of shares. The basic theory of these statutes is to permit owners of a corporation to control its ownership and management and prevent outsiders from inserting themselves into the operations of the corporation. Id. at 502-03, 172 N.E. 801; 12 William Meade Fletcher et al, Fletcher Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations, § 5454 (1996). Chief Justice Holmes stated the matter succinctly a century ago: Barrett v. King, 181 Mass. 476, 63 N.E. 934, 935 (1902). As applied to a family-owned corporation, this remains valid today.
Transfer restrictions are treated as contracts either between shareholders or between shareholders and the corporation.1Doss, 95 Ind.App. at 502, 172 N.E. at 803; Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 55, 99 S.Ct. 914, 59...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ray v. Raj Bedi Revocable Trust
...to Indiana law, buy-sell agreements are treated as contracts controlling the conveyance of personal property. See F.B.I. Farms, Inc. v. Moore , 798 N.E.2d 440, 445 (Ind. 2003). "Apart from any statutory requirements, [buy-sell agreements] are to be read, like any other contract, to further ......
-
Pennfield Oil Co. v. Winstrom
...of issue, that buy-out stock transfer provision expressly referring to probate transfers was enforceable). See, also, F.B.I. Farms, Inc. v. Moore, 798 N.E.2d 440 (Ind.2003); Boston Safe Dep. & Tr. Co. v. North Attleborough Chapt. American Red Cross, 330 Mass. 114, 111 N.E.2d 447 (1953); Dix......
-
Ray v. Raj Bedi Revocable Tr.
...law, buy-sell agreements are treated as contracts controlling the conveyance of personal property. See F.B.I. Farms, Inc. v. Moore, 798 N.E.2d 440, 445 (Ind. 2003). "Apart from any statutory requirements, [buy-sell agreements] are to be read, like any other contract, to further the manifest......
-
Dewey v. Bechthold
...to pay ‘fair value’ for stock under a stock redemption agreement" is not "fraud or breach of fiduciary duty."); F.B.I. Farms, Inc. v. Moore , 798 N.E.2d 440, 448 (Ind. 2003) ("to the extent that restriction devalues the shares in the hands of any individual shareholder by reason of lack of ......
-
Table of Cases
...Drywall, Inc. v. Ellis-Don Constr., Inc., 86 Wn. App. 884, 939 P.2d 1258 (1997). . . . . . .65.04[11] F F.B.I. Farms, Inc. v. Moore, 798 N.E.2d 440 (Ind. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.04 Fagalde; State v., 85 Wn.2d 730, 539 P.2d 86 (1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.03[3......
-
Chapter §54.04 Drafting Written Agreements
...own restrictions on division or sale of shares, but other states' courts seem to find it does. See, e.g., F.B.I. Farms, Inc. v. Moore, 798 N.E.2d 440, 449 (Ind. 2003), in which the court specifically stated transfers based on dissolution will defeat restrictive language. To ensure against l......