breach of fiduciary duty claim in Indiana

2025See W & W Equipment Co., Inc. v. Mink, 568 N.E.2d 564, 576 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). [44] A fiduciary relationship does not exist unless there is a relationship of trust and confidence between the parties.

2020See id.; Bacompt Sys., Inc. v. Ashworth, 752 N.E.2d 140, 145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (stating that a breach of fiduciary duty claim is a tort claim for injury to personal property), trans. denied; Ind. Code § 33-43-1-8 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2814 | June 4, 2020 Page 8 of 11 (attorney deceit statute and action for treble damages); Browning v. Walters, 616 N.E.2d 1040, 1047 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (stating the statute of limitations for treble damages is two years). [16] For a cause of action to accrue, it is not necessary that the full extent of damage be known or ev

2020See id.; Bacompt Sys., Inc. v. Ashworth, 752 N.E.2d 140, 145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (stating that a breach of fiduciary duty claim is a tort claim for injury to personal property), trans. denied; Ind. Code § 33-43-1-8 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2814 | June 4, 2020 Page 8 of 11 (attorney deceit statute and action for treble damages); Browning v. Walters, 616 N.E.2d 1040, 1047 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (stating the statute of limitations for treble damages is two years). [16] For a cause of action to accrue, it is not necessary that the full extent of damage be known or ev

2020See id.; Bacompt Sys., Inc. v. Ashworth, 752 N.E.2d 140, 145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (stating that a breach of fiduciary duty claim is a tort claim for injury to personal property), trans. denied; Ind. Code § 33-43-1-8 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2814 | June 4, 2020 Page 8 of 11 (attorney deceit statute and action for treble damages); Browning v. Walters, 616 N.E.2d 1040, 1047 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (stating the statute of limitations for treble damages is two years). [16] For a cause of action to accrue, it is not necessary that the full extent of damage be known or ev

2020See id.; Bacompt Sys., Inc. v. Ashworth, 752 N.E.2d 140, 145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (stating that a breach of fiduciary duty claim is a tort claim for injury to personal property), trans. denied; Ind. Code § 33-43-1-8 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2814 | June 4, 2020 Page 8 of 11 (attorney deceit statute and action for treble damages); Browning v. Walters, 616 N.E.2d 1040, 1047 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (stating the statute of limitations for treble damages is two years). [16] For a cause of action to accrue, it is not necessary that the full extent of damage be known or ev

2020Myers v. Maxson, 51 N.E.3d 1267, 1276 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. [L]egal malpractice actions are subject to the “discovery rule,” which provides that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until such time as the plaintiff knows, or in the exercise of ordinary diligence could have discovered, that he had sustained an injury as the result of the tortious act of another.

2019Consequently, the Dissenters’ Rights Statute “provides the exclusive remedy for minority shareholders challenging a proposed merger.” Settles v. Leslie, 701 N.E.2d 849, 853 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). [42] A shareholder’s ability to bring a breach of fiduciary duty claim in the context of a merger or other covered corporate action is also limited by the Dissenters’ Rights Statute.

2017See id. (noting that to prevail on a breach of fiduciary duty claim, the claimant must establish harm).

2014Servs., Inc. v. Quadri Enters., LLC, 980 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (citation omitted). “[L]ess certainty is required to prove amount of loss than is required to prove the fact that profits were in truth lost.” Jerry Alderman Ford Sales, Inc. v. Bailey, 154 Ind. App. 632, 652 , 291 N.E.2d 92, 106 (1972), clarified on other grounds on reh’g, 154 Ind. 632 , 294 N.E.2d 617 , trans. denied. 4 In a footnote in his appellate brief, Tom notes that he “also brought a breach of fiduciary duty claim against Mark for his purchase of The Properties as ‘[u]surping a corporate opportunity is a bre

2014Servs., Inc. v. Quadri Enters., LLC, 980 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (citation omitted). “[L]ess certainty is required to prove amount of loss than is required to prove the fact that profits were in truth lost.” Jerry Alderman Ford Sales, Inc. v. Bailey, 154 Ind. App. 632, 652 , 291 N.E.2d 92, 106 (1972), clarified on other grounds on reh’g, 154 Ind. 632 , 294 N.E.2d 617 , trans. denied. 4 In a footnote in his appellate brief, Tom notes that he “also brought a breach of fiduciary duty claim against Mark for his purchase of The Properties as ‘[u]surping a corporate opportunity is a bre

2014Servs., Inc. v. Quadri Enters., LLC, 980 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (citation omitted). “[L]ess certainty is required to prove amount of loss than is required to prove the fact that profits were in truth lost.” Jerry Alderman Ford Sales, Inc. v. Bailey, 154 Ind. App. 632, 652 , 291 N.E.2d 92, 106 (1972), clarified on other grounds on reh’g, 154 Ind. 632 , 294 N.E.2d 617 , trans. denied. 4 In a footnote in his appellate brief, Tom notes that he “also brought a breach of fiduciary duty claim against Mark for his purchase of The Properties as ‘[u]surping a corporate opportunity is a bre

2009Cavens v. Zaberdac, 849 N.E.2d 526, 533 (Ind.2006) (holding that "lilssues not raised at the trial court are waived on appeal").

2005After a bench trial, the trial court determined the value of Wenzel's stock, denied Wenzel's breach of fiduciary duty claim, and granted H & G's breach of fiduciary duty claim. 779 N.E.2d at 35-86 (internal citations omitted).

2005After a bench trial, the trial court determined the value of Wenzel's stock, denied Wenzel's breach of fiduciary duty claim, and granted H & G's breach of fiduciary duty claim. *999 779 N.E.2d at 35-36 (internal citations omitted).

2001As the Court observed in Melrose v. Capitol City Motor Lodge, Inc., 705 N.E.2d 985, 991 (Ind.1998), "The interrelationship between the conflict of interest statute and the common law of fiduciary duty in close corporations has not been the subject of judicial attention in Indiana." The Court went on to imply that a breach of fiduciary duty claim may nevertheless lie to attack a transaction that has been ratified.

2001In evaluating a claim of breach of duty in a close corporation, the Court upheld the challenged transaction because "(1) the material facts of the transaction and [the director's] interest were disclosed or known to [the minority], (2) the requisite corporate formalities necessary to authorize, approve, or ratify the transaction were followed, and (8) the transaction was fair to the corporation." Id.