“Once it is established that one with a fiduciary duty has attempted to benefit from a questioned transaction, the law presumes fraud.”
How later courts described this case
- “Once it is established that one with a fiduciary duty has attempted to benefit from a questioned transaction, the law presumes fraud.”
- affirmed punitive damages on evidence of malicious fraud against former shareholders in closely held corporation
- payment of recovery to corporation protects interests of creditors and other shareholders
- “A director cannot blindly take action and later avoid the consequences by saying he was not aware of the effect of the action he took.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MILLER, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the majority opinion. However, I note this is a case where findings of fact were requested and made pursuant to Trial Rule 52(B). In such a case, and where the findings are challenged as incomplete, we determine whether the findings support the judgment. Thus, it might seem strange to a reader of the majority opinion-at first blush-to see the majority depart from this standard of review and ignore the trial court's findings of fact when it discusses the court's award of $420,000. However, I further observe this deviation is simply because the appellants, in their briefs, attack the damage award as not being within the scope of the evidence.
Because appellants' argument on this issue was based on the evidence presented at trial, the majority responded by point ing out that appellants' interpretation of the evidence was not binding and other evidence presented at trial supported the trial court's judgment.
On appeal, we are only required to respond to the arguments raised and have done so in this case. Thus, we need not address the more narrow issue, not argued here, that the basic findings of the court-without regard to the evidence presented at trial-do not support the judgment.