Thorndike v. Thorndike
| Court | Supreme Court of New Hampshire |
| Citation | 154 N.H. 443,910 A.2d 1224 |
| Decision Date | 30 November 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 2005–737.,2005–737. |
| Parties | Townsend D. THORNDIKE v. Charles E. THORNDIKE. |
154 N.H. 443
910 A.2d 1224
Townsend D. THORNDIKE
v.
Charles E. THORNDIKE.
No. 2005–737.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire.
Argued: Sept. 13, 2006.
Opinion Issued: Nov. 30, 2006.
Wiggin & Nourie, P.A., of Manchester (W. Wright Danenbarger on the brief), and Lyne, Woodworth & Evarts, LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts (Edmund Polubinski, Jr., on the brief and orally), for the petitioner.
Gallagher, Callahan & Gartrell, P.A., of Concord (Michael R. Callahan and Thomas J. Schlesinger on the brief, and Mr. Callahan orally), for the respondent.
GALWAY, J.
The petitioner, Townsend D. Thorndike, appeals an order of the Superior Court (Perkins, J.) ruling that the statute of limitations barred his petition for equitable relief and damages. We affirm.
Because the petitioner appeals a motion to dismiss, we assume the truth of the following facts asserted by the petitioner. The petitioner and the respondent, Charles E. Thorndike, are brothers and shareholders in a corporation known as Annalee Mobilitee Dolls, Inc. (AMD), which produces and sells collectible dolls. The business was started by the brothers' parents in 1951, and the brothers began working at AMD in the early 1970s. From the early 1970s to the 1990s, the major business decisions for AMD were made unanimously by all Thorndike family members. In 1992, the parents gave 48 percent of the business's voting stock to the petitioner and 48 percent to the respondent, leaving 2 percent to each parent. At this time, the
family agreed that all four family members would be directors of AMD. In 1995, the parents gave day-to-day control of the business to the respondent, but it was agreed upon by all shareholders and directors that the petitioner would retain a directorship and a significant management position. The shareholders and directors further agreed that the brothers would continue to share equally in the income from the business.
The petitioner alleges that, after the respondent gained control of day-to-day operations, he and his parents added people who were neither shareholders nor Thorndike family members to AMD's board of directors. The parents also transferred their voting stock to a voting trust under the control of one of the new board members. The respondent and the new board members then removed the petitioner from his position as a director and from any management role in AMD. The respondent reduced the salaries of his parents and the petitioner to zero, due to losses suffered by the company, but continued to pay himself and the outside directors. The losses that began after the petitioner's removal from management totaled in the millions of dollars. In 1997, AMD's financing bank terminated AMD's line of credit and demanded full repayment of loans. In response to these losses, the respondent invested some of his own money into AMD. In exchange, he and the new board members caused AMD to issue convertible notes to the respondent, which were convertible to voting stock
and would, if converted, increase the respondent's voting power and decrease the petitioner's.
The petitioner alleges that, prior to February 18, 2002, the respondent: (1) converted the convertible notes to voting stock, thus diluting the petitioner's voting power; (2) denied the petitioner information regarding AMD's operations; (3) continued to pay himself a salary and not pay the petitioner a salary; (4) refused to allow the petitioner to participate in the business; and (5) banned the petitioner from AMD's premises and prohibited contact between the petitioner and AMD employees.
The petitioner alleges that, after February 18, 2002, the respondent: (1) continued to exclude the petitioner from employment with AMD; (2) refused to provide the petitioner with copies of AMD's tax returns; (3) continued to pay himself a salary and not pay the petitioner; (4) continued to refuse to allow the petitioner to participate in AMD's operations; (5) continued to ban the petitioner from AMD's premises; (6) failed to hold the 2004 AMD shareholders' meeting; and (7) caused AMD to fail to pay rent to C&T Partnership, a real estate partnership owned by the petitioner and the respondent that leases real estate to AMD.
Based upon the above events, the petitioner filed a petition for equitable relief and damages on February 18, 2005. The petitioner alleged that, as the controlling shareholder of a closely-held corporation, the respondent breached his enhanced fiduciary duty to the petitioner, a minority shareholder, by defeating the petitioner's reasonable expectations and freezing him out from AMD. The respondent moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that the petitioner's claims all arose from facts that occurred and were known to the petitioner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Finn v. Ballentine Partners, LLC, No. 2015-0332
...the defendants that it is not preserved for our review inasmuch as Finn never presented it to the trial court. See Thorndike v. Thorndike, 154 N.H. 443, 447, 910 A.2d 1224 (2006) ("It is a long-standing rule that parties may not have judicial review of matters not raised in the forum of tri......
-
State v. Lake Winnipesaukee Resort, LLC, 2008–724.
...whether the petitioner's allegations are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery. Thorndike v. Thorndike, 154 N.H. 443, 446, 910 A.2d 1224 (2006). The respondents, however, moved to dismiss based exclusively upon the statute of limitations. The statute of limitat......
-
Singer Asset Fin. Co. v. Wyner, 2006–720.
...from TOLIC as calling for application of the "continuing wrong" doctrine to extend the limitations period. See Thorndike v. Thorndike, 154 N.H. 443, 446, 910 A.2d 1224 (2006). Under the "continuing wrong" doctrine, "[w]hen a tort is of a continuing nature, although the initial tortious act ......
-
Singer Asset Finance Co., LLC v. Wyner, No. 2006-720.
...from TOLIC as calling for application of the "continuing wrong" doctrine to extend the limitations period. See Thorndike v. Thorndike, 154 N.H. 443, 446, 910 A.2d 1224 (2006). Under the "continuing wrong" doctrine, "[w]hen a tort is of a continuing nature, although the initial tortious act ......
-
Finn v. Ballentine Partners, LLC, No. 2015-0332
...the defendants that it is not preserved for our review inasmuch as Finn never presented it to the trial court. See Thorndike v. Thorndike, 154 N.H. 443, 447, 910 A.2d 1224 (2006) ("It is a long-standing rule that parties may not have judicial review of matters not raised in the forum of tri......
-
State v. Lake Winnipesaukee Resort, LLC, 2008–724.
...whether the petitioner's allegations are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery. Thorndike v. Thorndike, 154 N.H. 443, 446, 910 A.2d 1224 (2006). The respondents, however, moved to dismiss based exclusively upon the statute of limitations. The statute of limitat......
-
Singer Asset Fin. Co. v. Wyner, 2006–720.
...from TOLIC as calling for application of the "continuing wrong" doctrine to extend the limitations period. See Thorndike v. Thorndike, 154 N.H. 443, 446, 910 A.2d 1224 (2006). Under the "continuing wrong" doctrine, "[w]hen a tort is of a continuing nature, although the initial tortious act ......
-
Singer Asset Finance Co., LLC v. Wyner, No. 2006-720.
...from TOLIC as calling for application of the "continuing wrong" doctrine to extend the limitations period. See Thorndike v. Thorndike, 154 N.H. 443, 446, 910 A.2d 1224 (2006). Under the "continuing wrong" doctrine, "[w]hen a tort is of a continuing nature, although the initial tortious act ......