No. 80-176
IN THE SUPFIEME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
JEANNE SKIERKA and ANNETTE SKIERKA,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
SKIERKA BROTHERS, INC., a Corporation,
JOHN SKIERKA and BERNICE SKIERKA,
Defendants and Appellants.
Appeal from: District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Liberty.
Honorable B. W. Thomas, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants:
Church, Harris, Johnson & Williams, Great Falls, Montana
Douglas C. Allen arged and Donald A. LaBar arqued,
~ d Respondents:
r
.Donald R. Marble, Chester, Montana
Jardine, Stephenson Law Firm, Great Falls, Montana
John D. Stephenson argued, Great Falls, Montana
Submitted: March 24, 1981
Decided: May 20, 1981
Filed: 2 0 1981'
.
I/ A
Clefk
Mr. J u s t i c e F r e d J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t .
John S k i e r k a ( d e f e n d a n t John) and B e r n i c e S k i e r k a (de-
f e n d a n t erni ice), husband and w i f e , and d e f e n d a n t S k i e r k a
Brothers, Inc. (corporation), a close-held family corpora-
t i o n , a p p e a l from t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e
T w e l f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , L i b e r t y County, t h e Honorable B.
W. Thomas, p r e s i d i n g . After t r i a l without a jury, the
D i s t r i c t C o u r t concluded t h a t J e a n n e S k i e r k a ( p l a i n t i f f
J e a n n e ) and A n n e t t e S k i e r k a ( p l a i n t i f f A n n e t t e ) had e s t a -
b l i s h e d t h e i r r i g h t t o r e s c i n d t h e i r t r a n s f e r of a s s e t s t o
t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , made i n exchange f o r s t o c k , on t h e b a s i s of
f r a u d and mutual m i s t a k e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o concluded
t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s had e s t a b l i s h e d t h e i r r i g h t t o have t h e
c o r p o r a t i o n l i q u i d a t e d under s e c t i o n 35-1-921 (1)( a ) (i:i.),
MCA, because of o p p r e s s i v e a c t s by d e f e n d a n t John S k i e r k a ,
who i s i n c o n t r o l of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . The judgment o r d e r s
t h e c o r p o r a t i o n t o t r a n s f e r back t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s whatever
p r o p e r t y and a s s e t s t h e y have t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e c o r p o r a t i o n
i n exchange f o r s t o c k , t o g e t h e r w i t h a d d i t i o n a l p r o p e r t y and
a s s e t s r e p r e s e n t i n g one h a l f ( 5 0 % ) of t h e f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e
of t h e o t h e r c o r p o r a t e a s s e t s on t h e d a t e of t r a n s f e r , o r ,
i n the alternative, t o transfer t o the p l a i n t i f f s other
p r o p e r t y and a s s e t s of e q u i v a l e n t v a l u e , a s t h e p a r t i e s may
agree. I f the p a r t i e s f a i l t o agree within a reasonable
t i m e a s t o t h e o t h e r a s s e t s t o be t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e p l a i n -
t i f f s , t h e n t h e judgment d e c r e e s t h a t t h e c o u r t w i l l d i s -
s o l v e t h e c o r p o r a t i o n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h s e c t i o n 35-1-922,
MCA .
~ p p e l l a n t s / d e f e n d a n t sp r e s e n t t h e following i s s u e s f o r
review:
1. Is p l a i n t i f f s ! a c t i o n b a r r e d by t h e a p p l i c a b l e
s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s ?
2. id t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t de-
f e n d a n t John S k i e r k a ' s a c t s a s e x e c u t o r and a s s u r v i v i n g
p a r t n e r cons ti t u t e d a f r a u d ?
3. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e
p a r t i e s a c t e d under mutual m i s t a k e a t t h e t i m e of p l a i n t i f f s '
t r a n s f e r of a s s e t s t o t h e c o r p o r a t i o n ?
4. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n d e c r e e i n g t h a t t h e
c o r p o r a t i o n may be l i q u i d a t e d on t h e grounds of o p p r e s s i o n ?
W e a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s
on a l l i s s u e s .
A l b e r t S k i e r k a and t h e d e f e n d a n t John were b r o t h e r s .
A l b e r t d i e d , l e a v i n g h i s widow p l a i n t i f f J e a n n e , and h i s
daughter, p l a i n t i f f Annette, surviving.
For a number of y e a r s b e f o r e h i s d e a t h , A l b e r t had con-
d u c t e d a r a n c h i n g and farming b u s i n e s s a s a n e q u a l p a r t n e r
w i t h d e f e n d a n t John under t h e p a r t n e r s h i p name S k i e r k a
Brothers. P o r t i o n s of t h e l a n d used by t h e p a r t n e r s h i p were
owned s e p a r a t e l y by John and B e r n i c e S k i e r k a and A l b e r t and
Jeanne Skierka. N l a n d was owned i n t h e p a r t n e r s h i p name.
o
The l a n d which was used by t h e p a r t n e r s h i p and owned s e p a r -
a t e l y had been a c q u i r e d by t h e two f a m i l i e s i n a check-
erboard fashion.
During A l b e r t ' s l i f e t i m e , he and d e f e n d a n t John d i s -
c u s s e d t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y of i n c o r p o r a t i n g i n o r d e r t o i n s u r e
c o n t i n u i t y of management and t o p l a n f o r minimizing t a x e s .
Much of t h e p r e l i m i n a r y i n c o r p o r a t i o n work w a s completed by
t h e d a t e of A l b e r t ' s d e a t h , F e b r u a r y 5, 1973.
A l b e r t l e f t a w i l l l e a v i n g h i s e s t a t e t o h i s widow,
p l a i n t i f f J e a n n e , and naming h i s b r o t h e r , d e f e n d a n t J o h n , a s
e x e c u t o r w i t h o u t bond. A s e x e c u t o r , d e f e n d a n t John f i l e d
h i s f i r s t and f i n a l a c c o u n t and p e t i t i o n f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n on
June 26, 1974. A l l of A l b e r t ' s p r o p e r t y was d i s t r i b u t e d t o
p l a i n t i f f Jeanne.
On May 1, 1973, w h i l e d e f e n d a n t John w a s s e r v i n g a s
e x e c u t o r of h i s b r o t h e r ' s e s t a t e , a meeting was h e l d between
p l a i n t i f f s J e a n n e and A n n e t t e and d e f e n d a n t s John and B e r n i c e
f o r t h e p u r p o s e of d i s c u s s i n g i n c o r p o r a t i o n of t h e r a n c h i n g
and farming b u s i n e s s . An a t t o r n e y and a n a c c o u n t a n t , e a c h
of whom had been c o n s u l t e d i n t h i s m a t t e r , were a l s o i n
attendance. A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e m e e t i n g , several
documents w e r e s i g n e d by t h e p a r t i e s , which r e s u l t e d i n t h e
following:
1. A l l p r o p e r t y owned by p l a i n t i f f J e a n n e and used i n
t h e p a r t n e r s h i p operation, a s well a s her family residence,
were t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e new c o r p o r a t i o n , S k i e r k a B r o t h e r s ,
Inc., i n exchange f o r 12,318 s h a r e s of i t s c a p i t a l s t o c k .
2. A l l p r o p e r t y owned by d e f e n d a n t s John and B e r n i c e
and used i n t h e p a r t n e r s h i p , a s w e l l a s t h e i r f a m i l y resi-
dence, were a l s o t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e c o r p o r a t i o n b u t i n
exchange f o r 12,682 s h a r e s of i t s c a p i t a l s t o c k . '(John
r e c e i v e d 7,502 s h a r e s and B e r n i c e 5,180 s h a r e s . ) Defendant
J o h n ' s f a m i l y t h e r e b y a c q u i r e d 364 s h a r e s more t h a n p l a i n t i f f
J e a n n e ' s f a m i l y , r e s u l t i n g i n v o t i n g c o n t r o l which became
the c r i t i c a l issue.
The a t t o r n e y i n a t t e n d a n c e had a d v i s e d t h e p a r t i e s t o
t r a n s f e r a l l r e a l p r o p e r t y h o l d i n g s , whether p e r s o n a l
r e s i d e n c e o r farming p r o p e r t y , t o t h e c o r p o r a t i o n i n ex-
change f o r s t o c k h o l d i n g s i n o r d e r t o s e c u r e c e r t a i n t a x
advantages. During t h e May meeting t h e a t t o r n e y and t h e
a c c o u n t a n t e x p l a i n e d t h a t J e a n n e would r e c e i v e s l i g h t l y less
t h a n 50 p e r c e n t of t h e s t o c k because h e r p e r s o n a l r e s i d e n c e
was worth l e s s t h a n t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' p e r s o n a l r e s i d e n c e , b o t h
of which were t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e c o r p o r a t i o n i n exchange f o r
stock .
The s t o c k i s s u e d t o t h e p a r t i e s i s s u b j e c t t o r e s t r i c -
t i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e bylaws of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . These
r e s t r i c t i o n s p r o v i d e t h a t t h e s t o c k c a n o n l y be t r a n s f e r r e d
by w r i t t e n c o n s e n t of t h e h o l d e r s of a m a j o r i t y of t h e
s t o c k . I n t h e a b s e n c e o f such c o n s e n t , t h e s h a r e h o l d e r
d e s i r i n g t o s e l l i s t o g i v e w r i t t e n n o t i c e of h i s i n t e n t i o n s
t o t h e s e c r e t a r y of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . The c o r p o r a t i o n t h e n
h a s a 90-day o p t i o n t o p u r c h a s e t h e s t o c k a t a p r i c e s e t by
a v o t e of t h e h o l d e r s of a m a j o r i t y of t h e s t o c k . I n the
event the corporation e l e c t s not t o purchase t h e stock, t h e
o t h e r s t o c k h o l d e r s have a 90-day o p t i o n t o p u r c h a s e a t t h e
p r i c e s e t by t h e h o l d e r s of a m a j o r i t y of t h e s t o c k . The
a r t i c l e s of i n c o r p o r a t i o n p r o v i d e t h a t t h e t e r m of t h e
corporation i s "perpetual". These r e s t r i c t i - o n s on s t o c k
t r a n s f e r and t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of h e r m i n o r i t y s h a r e h o l d e r
s t a t u s were never e x p l a i n e d t o J e a n n e S k i e r k a a t t h e m e e t i n g .
I n f a i r n e s s t o a l l , we p o i n t o u t t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s
t h a t none of t h e p a r t i e s a p p r e c i a t e d t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e
c o n t r o l which t h e d e f e n d a n t J o h n ' s f a m i l y o b t a i n e d .
The d i r e c t o r s of t h e new c o r p o r a t i o n were d e f e n d a n t s
John and B e r n i c e , and p l a i n t i f f J e a n n e . Following t h e
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l meeting p l a i n t i f f J e a n n e made g i f t s of s t o c k
t o p l a i n t i f f Annette. P l a i n t i f f A n n e t t e w a s made a d i r e c t o r
a t t h e n e x t a n n u a l meeting of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n i n 1974.
For a y e a r o r more a f t e r t h e i n c o r p o r a t i o n , t h e p e r s o n a l
r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e p a r t i e s remained c o r d i a l and
friendly. T h e i r r e l a t i o n s s t a r t e d t o d e t e r i o r a t e when
p l a i n t i f f J e a n n e , a f t e r c o n s u l t i n g w i t h h e r own a t t o r n e y on
May 29, 1975, came t o a r e a l i z a t i o n of h e r p o s i t i o n a s a
m i n o r i t y s t o c k h o l d e r and of t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s on t h e s a l e of
her stock. Her a t t o r n e y w r o t e a l e t t e r t o t h e c o r p o r a t i o n ' s
a t t o r n e y r e q u e s t i n g t h a t J e a n n e ' s s t o c k i n t e r e s t be made
e q u a l t o t h a t of John and B e r n i c e S k i e r k a . N a c t i o n was
o
t a k e n on t h i s r e q u e s t , b u t i t r e s u l t e d i n a n open b r e a k
between t h e two f a m i l i e s .
A t a l l of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n m e e t i n g s t h r o u g h 1976, t h e
p a r t i e s unanimously a g r e e d on t h e s t o c k v a l u a t i o n s . After
1976, p l a i n t i f f s J e a n n e and A n n e t t e v o t e d a g a i n s t t h e s t o c k
v a l u a t i o n s upon a d v i c e of c o u n s e l , based upon a c l a i m of i n -
s u f f i c i e n t value.
I n a n e f f o r t t o remedy t h e unequal s t o c k i n t e r e s t and
t o g i v e p l a i n t i f f J e a n n e an e q u a l v o i c e w i t h d e f e n d a n t John
i n t h e c o n d u c t of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , J e a n n e c a l l e d f o r a
s p e c i a l meeting o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . T h i s m e e t i n g was h e l d
on A p r i l 27, 1977, and a l l d i r e c t o r s were p r e s e n t . Motions
t o amend t h e bylaws t o c r e a t e an o f f i c e of e x e c u t i v e v i c e
p r e s i d e n t having e q u a l power and a u t h o r i t y w i t h t h a t of t h e
p r e s i d e n t and t o e l e c t p l a i n t i f f J e a n n e t o t h a t o f f i c e w e r e
moved by p l a i n t i f f s A n n e t t e and by J e a n n e , who v o t e d i n
f a v o r of each. Defendants John and B e r n i c e v o t e d a g a i n s t
t h e motions. Each of t h e r e s o l u t i o n s f a i l e d f o r l a c k of a
majority vote.
S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , on A p r i l 29, 1977, p l a i n t i f f s
J e a n n e and A n n e t t e f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g t o d i s s o l v e t h e
corporation. The p l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e d f r a u d and o p p r e s s i v e
c o n d u c t on t h e p a r t of d e f e n d a n t John and h i s f a m i l y , w a s t e
o f c o r p o r a t e a s s e t s , and t h a t t h e c o r p o r a t i o n was d e a d l o c k e d .
A f t e r t r i a l , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h e e v i d e n c e i n -
s u f f i c i e n t t o support the allegation t h a t the corporation
was deadlocked. I t d i d f i n d t h a t d e f e n d a n t John, by p e r -
m i t t i n g himself t o be p l a c e d i n c o n t r o l of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n ,
v i o l a t e d t h e f i d u c i a r y d u t i e s of a t r u s t e e , i n h i s c a p a c i t y
a s e x e c u t o r of h i s d e c e a s e d b r o t h e r ' s e s t a t e and a s h i s
d e c e a s e d b r o t h e r ' s s u r v i v i n g p a r t n e r , and t h e r e f o r e , a c t e d
f r a u d u l e n t l y under s e c t i o n 72-20-207, MCA. The c o u r t a l s o
found t h a t t h e p a r t i e s , i n t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e i r a s s e t s t o t h e
c o r p o r a t i o n , made t h e t r a n s f e r i n t h e m i s t a k e n b e l i e f t h a t
e a c h f a m i l y would have e q u a l ownership and e q u a l v o i c e i n
t h e management of t h e b u s i n e s s . Last, t h e c o u r t found t h e
a c t s of d e f e n d a n t John i n c o n t r o l l i n g t h e c o r p o r a t i o n w e r e
oppressive. As a result, t h e c o u r t ordered t h a t the trans-
a c t i o n by which p l a i n t i f f J e a n n e t r a n s f e r r e d p r o p e r t y t o t h e
c o r p o r a t i o n be r e s c i n d e d , and t h a t one h a l f of t h e c o r p o r a -
t i o n ' s o t h e r a s s e t s be t r a n s f e r r e d t o J e a n n e , o r e l s e t h e
c o u r t would l i q u i d a t e t h e c o r p o r a t i o n i t s e l f .
ISSUE #1: STATUTE O LIMITATIONS
F
Former s e c t i o n 9 3 - 2 6 0 7 ( 4 ) , R.C.M., 1947, now s e c t i o n
27-2-203, MCA, s e t t h e f o l l o w i n g p e r i o d of l i m i t a t i o n :
"Two-year l i m i t a t i o n . Within two y e a r s :
" 4 . A h a c t i o n f o r r e I i e f on t h e ground of f r a u d o r
m i s t a k e , t h e c a u s e of a c t i o n i n s u c h c a s e n o t t o b e
deemed t o have a c c r u e d u n t i l t h e d i s c o v e r y by t h e
a g g r i e v e d p a r t y of t h e f a c t s c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e f r a u d
o r mistake."
Defendants a r g u e t h a t any f r a u d o r m i s t a k e o c c u r r e d on
o r p r i o r t o May 1, 1973, t h e d a t e of p l a i n t i f f J e a n n e ' s
t r a n s f e r of p r o p e r t y i n exchange f o r s t o c k , s o t h a t t h e
above s t a t u t e b a r s t h i s a c t i o n which was f i l e d o v e r t h r e e
years l a t e r . Defendants f u r t h e r a r g u e t h a t t h e r u n n i n g of
t h e s t a t u t e was n o t t o l l e d pending p l a i n t i f f J e a n n e ' s a c t u a l
d i s c o v e r y of h e r i n f e r i o r p o s i t i o n , b e c a u s e s h e c o u l d o r
s h o u l d have d i s c o v e r e d h e r p o s i t i o n i n 1973 when t h e d i f f e r -
e n c e i n s t o c k ownership w a s e x p l a i n e d t o h e r , and a l l t e r m s
and bylaws of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n were s e t f o r t h i n t h e documents
which s h e e x e c u t e d a s s e c r e t a r y - t r e a s u r e r . Defendants c i t e
K e r r i g a n v . O'Meara ( 1 9 2 4 ) , 71 Mont. 1, 227 P . 819, a s
support f o r t h e i r contentions. However, t h a t c a s e p o i n t s
o u t t h e r e a s o n f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g i t from t h i s a p p e a l :
". . . Unless t h e r e - - i s some r e l a t i o n of t r u s t o r
c o n f i d e n c e between t h e p a r t i e s which imposes upon
a
- d e f e n d a n t --- making - - u l l d i s c l o s u r e
t h e d u t y of a f
of t h e f a c t s , t h e r e must be some a c t i v e a f f i r m a -
t i v e concealment of t h e f r a u d , something s a i d
o r done t o c o n t i n u e t h e d e c e p t i o n o r t o p r e v e n t
i n q u i r y and l u l l p l a i n t i f f i n t o a s e n s e of s e -
c u r i t y , i n o r d e r t o p o s t p o n e t h e r u n n i n g of t h e
statute." K e r r i g a n , 71 Mont. 7 , 227 P . 821. (Em-
p h a s i s added.)
The c o u r t i n K e r r i g a n found no r e l a t i o n of t r u s t o r c o n f i d e n c e
which would impose a d u t y t o d i s c l o s e upon t h e d e f e n d a n t .
The c o u r t t h e n found t h a t t h e s t a t u t e had n o t been t o l l e d ,
and t h e p l a i n t i f f was b a r r e d from a s s e r t i n g h i s c l a i m . The
r u l e a s s t a t e d i n K e r r i g a n was r e s t a t e d by t h i s C o u r t i n
Anderson v. Applebury ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 173 Mont. 411, 419-420, 567
Although K e r r i g a n d i d n o t c o n c e r n a s i t u a t i o n w h e r e i n
t h e d e f e n d a n t had h e l d a p o s i t i o n of t r u s t and c o n f i d e n c e i n
relation t o the p l a i n t i f f , t h a t p a r t of t h e s t a t e d r u l e i s
s u p p o r t e d by o t h e r a u t h o r i t y . See 54 C. J . S . Limitation -
of
A c t i o n s , S194; 3 7 Am.Jur.2d --
Fraud and ~ e c e i t ,S409.
Here, d e f e n d a n t John d i d occupy a p o s i t i o n of t r u s t and
confidence i n r e l a t i o n t o p l a i n t i f f Jeanne, a s discussed
below. H e was e x e c u t o r of h i s b r o t h e r ' s e s t a t e a t t h e t i m e
of i n c o r p o r a t i o n . A l s o , he was p a r t n e r t o h i s b r o t h e r a t
t h e d a t e of d e a t h ; t h a t s t a t u s imposed upon d e f e n d a n t John
t h e d u t i e s of a t r u s t e e . See former s e c t i o n 91-3205, R.C.M.,
1947, now s e c t i o n 72-12-704, MCA. Such r e l a t i o n s h i p s may
have t e c h n i c a l l y ended when t h e e s t a t e was c l o s e d and t h e
p a r t n e r s h i p c e a s e d t o f u n c t i o n , b u t t h e e f f e c t of t h e c o n f i -
d e n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p d i d n o t c e a s e u n t i l May 29, 1975, t h e
d a t e on which t h e t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t p l a i n t i f f J e a n n e
f i r s t discovered her i n f e r i o r position. T h i s a c t i o n was
f i l e d on A p r i l 29, 1977, s o i t comes w i t h i n t h e two-year
s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s .
ISSUE # 2 : FRAUD
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t concluded t h a t p l a i n t i f f J e a n n e had
e s t a b l i s h e d h e r r i g h t t o r e s c i n d h e r p a r t of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n
which c r e a t e d t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , a s f o l l o w s :
"1. P l a i n t i f f s have e s t a b l i s h e d t h e i r r i g h t t o
have t h e t r a n s a c t i o n whereby P l a i n t i f f , J e a n n e
S k i e r k a , and Defendant, John S k i e r k a , t r a n s f e r r e d
a s s e t s t o Skierka Brothers, incorporated, [ s i c ] i n
exchange f o r s t o c k r e s c i n d e d on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e
a c t s and f a i l u r e s t o a c t of t h e Defendant, John
S k i e r k a , who was t h e n a t r u s t e e i n e a c h of h i s cap-
a c i t i e s a s e x e c u t o r of h i s d e c e a s e d b r o t h e r ' s e s t a t e
and a s s u r v i v i n g p a r t n e r , r e s u l t e d i n p l a c i n g him
i n c o n t r o l of s a i d c o r p o r a t i o n and a r e , a s a conse-
quence, f r a u d u l e n t p u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n 72-20-207 of
t h e Montana Code."
T h a t c o n c l u s i o n i s based upon t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s
t h a t t h e two b r o t h e r s had been e q u a l p a r t n e r s i n t h e r a n c h
b u s i n e s s ; t h a t d e f e n d a n t John was e x e c u t o r of h i s b r o t h e r ' s
e s t a t e ; t h a t a t t h e t i m e t h e i n c o r p o r a t i o n took p l a c e , a l l
p a r t i e s b e l i e v e d c o n t r o l would be and was d i v i d e d e q u a l l y ;
b u t t h a t , a s a r e s u l t o f t h e a c c o u n t a n t ' s v a l u a t i o n of t h e
two h o u s e s , d e f e n d a n t s John and B e r n i c e ended up i n c o n t r o l
of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n .
P a s t Montana c a s e s have assumed, w i t h o u t e x p l i c i t l y
s t a t i n g , t h a t a n e x e c u t o r of a d e c e d e n t ' s e s t a t e o c c u p i e d a
p o s i t i o n of t r u s t e e s h i p o v e r t h e a s s e t s and i n f a v o r of t h e
devisees. See I n r e J e n n i n g s ' E s t a t e ( 1 9 2 5 ) , 74 Mont. 449,
461-462, 2 4 1 P. 648, 6 5 2 ; I n re E a k i n s ' E s t a t e ( 1 9 2 2 ) , 64
Mont. 84, 93, 208 P. 956, 960. (The Montana P r o b a t e Code
now s p e c i f i c a l l y p l a c e s a l l t h e d u t i e s of a t r u s t e e upon
personal representatives. S e c t i o n 72-3-610, MCA.)
3 r
0
The t r u s t e e s t a t u t e s , s e c t i o n s 8 6 4 , e t s e q . , R.C.M.,
9 o/
1947, now s e c t i o n s 72-20-%@0, e t s e q . , MCA, p r o v i d e a s
follows:
"Trustee's obligation -- of good f a i t h . In a l l matters
c o n n e c t e d w i t h h i s t r u s t , a t r u s t e e i s bound t o a c t
i n t h e h i g h e s t good f a i t h toward h i s b e n e f i c i a r y and
may n o t o b t a i n any a d v a n t a g e t h e r e i n o v e r t h e l a t t e r
by t h e s l i g h t e s t m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , concealment,
t h r e a t , o r a d v e r s e p r e s s u r e of any k i n d . (72-20-201,
MCA. )
" T r u s t e e ' s i n f l u e n c e -t-o- - - - r h i s advantage..
no t be used f o
A t r u s t e e may n o t u s e t h e i n f l u e n c e which h i s p o s i t i o n
g i v e s t o him t o o b t a i n any a d v a n t a g e from h i s bene-
ficiary. (72-20-202, MCA.)
"Duty - d i s c l o s e a d v e r s e i n t e r e s t .
- - to I f a t r u s t e e ac-
q u i r e s any i n t e r e s t o r becomes c h a r g e d w i t h any d u t y
a d v e r s e t o t h e i n t e r e s t of h i s b e n e f i c i a r y i n t h e
s u b j e c t of t h e t r u s t , h e must immediately i n f o r m t h e
l a t t e r t h e r e o f and may be a t once removed. (72-20-206,
MCA. )
" V i o l a t i o n of o b l i g a t i o n s a s f r a u d . Every v i o l a t i o n
of t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n s of t h i s
c h a p t e r i s a f r a u d a g a i n s t t h e b e n e f i c i a r y of t h e
trust. (72-20-207, MCA.)
"Presumption a g a i n s t t r u s t e e s . A l l t r a n s a c t i o n s be-
tween a t r u s t e e and h i s b e n e f i c i a r y d u r i n g t h e ex-
i s t e n c e of t h e t r u s t o r w h i l e t h e i n f l u e n c e a c q u i r e d
by t h e t r u s t e e r e m a i n s by which he o b t a i n s any ad-
v a n t a g e from h i s b e n e f i c i a r y a r e presumed t o be en-
t e r e d i n t o by t h e l a t t e r w i t h o u t s u f f i c i e n t c o n s i d e r -
a t i o n and under undue i n f l u e n c e . " (72-20-208, MCA;)
I n i t s Memorandum on Order Denying P o s t - t r i a l Motions,
the D i s t r i c t Court gives i t s reasons f o r finding fraud:
". . . A t t h e t i m e t h e c o r p o r a t i o n was c r e a t e d and
t h e a s s e t s of t h e p a r t i e s were t r a n s f e r r e d t o i t ,
John S k i e r k a s t o o d i n a t r u s t r e l a t i o n s h i p t o J e a n n e
S k i e r k a , b o t h a s t h e s u r v i v i n g p a r t n e r and a s exe-
cutor. More t h a n t h a t , he s t o o d i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p
of t r u s t and c o n f i d e n c e t o J e a n n e a s one t o whom s h e
c o u l d look and d i d l o o k f o r g u i d a n c e and a d v i c e on
business a f f a i r s . The e v i d e n c e f u r t h e r shows t h a t
a t t h i s t i m e J e a n n e was s t i l l d i s t r a u g h t o v e r h e r
h u s b a n d ' s d e a t h and was n o t p a y i n g c l o s e a t t e n t i o n
t o b u s i n e s s d e t a i l s , a l t h o u g h d e s i r o u s of c a r r y i n g
o u t her l a t e husband's d e s i r e t o convert t h e p a r t n e r -
ship t o a corporation. I n t h e view of t h i s C o u r t ,
John S k i e r k a had a n a f f i r m a t i v e d u t y t o see t h a t he
and J e a n n e r e t a i n e d p o s i t i o n s of e q u a l i t y upon crea-
t i o n of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , and i t was a b r e a c h of h i s
d u t y t o p e r m i t a r e s u l t which p l a c e d him i n a s u p e r i o r
p o s i t i o n , i n c o n t r o l of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n and t h e d i s -
p o s i t i o n of t h e s t o c k . Although d e f e n d a n t s a r g u e t h a t
t h e t r a n s a c t i o n o c c u r r e d i n t h e p r e s e n c e of a n i n d e -
p e n d e n t a t t o r n e y and a c c o u n t a n t who e x p l a i n e d t h e
s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n t o J e a n n e S k i e r k a , t h e
a t t o r n e y and a c c o u n t a n t a d m i t t h a t t h e y t o l d J e a n n e
t h a t t h e unequal s t o c k ownership was n o t r e a l l y i m -
p o r t a n t and t h e y f a i l e d t o d i s c u s s w i t h h e r t h e by-law
p r o v i s i o n which r e s t r i c t s t h e s a l e of s t o c k o r t o a d v i s e
h e r what e f f e c t t h i s c o u l d have on h e r a s a m i n o r i t y
stockholder. So i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e f u l l s i g n i f i c a n c e
of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n was n o t e x p l a i n e d t o J e a n n e .
I n t h e C o u r t ' s view t h i s s i t u a t i o n comes w i t h i n t h e
d e f i n i t i o n of c o n s t r u c t i v e f r a u d : 'Any b r e a c h o f d u t y
which, w i t h o u t an a c t u a l l y f r a u d u l e n t i n t e n t , g a i n s a n
a d v a n t a g e t o t h e p e r s o n i n f a u l t o r anyone c l a i m i n g
under him by m i s l e a d i n g a n o t h e r t o h i s p r e j u d i c e .. .'
S e c t i o n 28-2-406, MCA."
Because t h e r e s u l t of t h e i n c o r p o r a t i o n i s t o g i v e
d e f e n d a n t s John and B e r n i c e c o n t r o l o v e r t h e a s s e t s which
p l a i n t i f f J e a n n e a c q u i r e d by w i l l from h e r l a t e husband, t h e
t r u s t e e s t a t u t e s have c l e a r l y been v i o l a t e d , r e g a r d l e s s of
J o h n ' s good i n t e n t i o n s . Defendants c i t e t h e c a s e of Boatman
v . Berg ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 208, 577 P.2d 382, a s s u p p o r t f o r
t h e i r argument t h a t some wrongful a c t must be shown b e f o r e a
t r u s t e e c a n be found t o have committed f r a u d upon h i s bene-
ficiary. Boatman, t h i s C o u r t found wrongful a c t ,
b e c a u s e i t was c l e a r t h e r e t h a t t h e t r u s t e e had g i v e n good
and a d e q u a t e c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r a l l of t h e p r o p e r t y which t h e
p l a i n t i f f had t r a n s f e r r e d t o him; t h e t r u s t e e d i d n o t
b e n e f i t a t t h e expense of t h e b e n e f i c i a r y . Here, d e f e n d a n t
John p e r s o n a l l y b e n e f i t e d a t t h e expense of p l a i n t i f f J e a n n e
when he g a i n e d t h e power t o v a l u e J e a n n e ' s s t o c k and t o con-
t r o l corporate operations. That c o n d i t i o n w a s n o t p r e s e n t
i n Boatman. The e v i d e n c e d o e s show t h a t J e a n n e , s i n c e t h e
d a t e of i n c o r p o r a t i o n , h a s been a b l e t o withdraw a l l t h e
money s h e h a s needed and t h a t John h a s managed t h e c o r p o r a t i o n
c o m p e t e n t l y and e f f i c i e n t l y . However, competent management
d o e s n o t c o r r e c t t h e i n i t i a l wrong: d e f e n d a n t John o b t a i n e d
a n a d v a n t a g e o v e r p l a i n t i f f J e a n n e w i t h o u t having f u l l y
d i s c l o s e d t h e consequences.
ISSUE # 3 : MISTAKE
A s a n a l t e r n a t e ground i n s u p p o r t of p l a i n t i f f J e a n n e ' s
r i g h t t o r e s c i n d h e r t r a n s f e r of p r o p e r t y , t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t found t h a t t h e r e was a mutual m i s t a k e by t h e p a r t i e s
i n t h e i r b e l i e f t h a t t h e unequal s t o c k ownership would make
no r e a l d i f f e r e n c e s o f a r a s c o n t r o l of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n w a s
concerned. If t h e f a c t s were u n d e r s t o o d , t h e n a t l e a s t t h e
p a r t i e s were m i s t a k e n a s t o t h e i r l e g a l e f f e c t . See c o n c l u -
s i o n no. 2 of f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law;
Memorandum on Order Denying P o s t - t r i a l Motions, p. 2.
F i n d i n g of f a c t no. 1 2 s t a t e s : ". . . A t t h e t i m e , no
one c o n s i d e r e d t h a t t h e unequal s t o c k d i v i s i o n was of any
particular legal or practical significance. U to the t i m e
p
o f t h i s m e e t i n g , i t was always c o n s i d e r e d by t h e p a r t i e s
t h a t t h e c o r p o r a t i o n would c o n t i n u e t h e 50-50 ownership and
management r e l a t i o n s h i p which e x i s t e d under t h e p a r t n e r s h i p . "
T h a t f i n d i n g of t h e c o u r t i s n o t d i s p u t e d . R a t h e r , de-
f e n d a n t s c l a i m t h a t no m i s t a k e c a n be found under t h e law
b e c a u s e t h e widow f a i l e d i n h e r l e g a l d u t y t o f u l l y r e a d t h e
i n c o r p o r a t i o n and conveyance documents b e f o r e s i g n i n g ,
c i t i n g former s e c t i o n 13-313, R.C.M., 1947, now s e c t i o n 28-
2-409, MCA. A s previously pointed out, t h e d u t y was n o t s o
much on t h e widow t o d i s c o v e r a s i t was on t h e t r u s t e e t o
f u l l y disclose. I n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s view, t h e f a c t t h a t no
d i s c l o s u r e was made by d e f e n d a n t John i n d i c a t e s t h e m i s t a k e
under which t h e p a r t i e s w e r e a c t i n g .
F i n d i n g s of f a c t s h o u l d n o t be s e t a s i d e u n l e s s c l e a r l y
erroneous. Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ,P. W f i n d no s u c h c l e a r
e
error.
ISSUE # 4 : OPPRESSION
S e c t i o n 35-1-921, MCA, provides a s follows:
"Power of c o u r t - l i q u i d a t e a s s e t s and b u s i n e s s of
to
corporation--venue. (1) The d i s t r i c t c o u r t s s h a l l
have f u l l power t o l i q u i d a t e t h e a s s e t s and b u s i n e s s
of a c o r p o r a t i o n :
" ( a ) i n a n a c t i o n by a s h a r e h o l d e r when i t i s es-
tablished that:
" (ii) t h e ' a c t s of
- the-di.rec€ors o r those i n control
of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n a r e i l l e g a l , o p p r e s s i v e , o r
fraudulent . . ."
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y found t h a t no d e a d l o c k
e x i s t e d i n t h e c o r p o r a t i o n ( f i n d i n g of f a c t no. 23) and t h a t
d e f e n d a n t John i s a competent o p e r a t o r , managing t h e b u s i n e s s
c o m p e t e n t l y and e f f i c i e n t l y ( f i n d i n g of f a c t no. 1 7 ) .
The c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n no. 3 states: " P l a i n t i f f s have
e s t a b l i s h e d t h e i r r i g h t t o have t h e a s s e t s and b u s i n e s s of
Defendant S k i e r k a B r o t h e r s , I n c o r p o r a t e d , l i q u i d a t e d pur-
s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s of S e c t i o n 35-1-921 (1)( a ) ( i i )of
t h e Montana Code on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e a c t s of Defendant
John S k i e r k a , i n c o n t r o l of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , a r e o p p r e s s i v e . "
The c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n was based upon t h e f o l l o w i n g
findings:
"16. Annual m e e t i n g s of t h e s t o c k h o l d e r s and
d i r e c t o r s of S k i e r k a B r o t h e r s , I n c o r p o r a t e d , have
been h e l d e v e r y y e a r ... A t t h e meetings t h r o u g h
1976, a l l p a r t i e s unanimously a g r e e d on t h e s t o c k
valuations. A f t e r 1976, J e a n n e and A n n e t t e S k i e r k a
v o t e d a g a i n s t t h e v a l u a t i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d upon a d v i c e
of c o u n s e l . I n 1979, t h e meeting was h e l d by unani-
mous c o n s e n t .
"18. S i n c e i t s i n c o r p o r a t i o n , Defendant John S k i e r k a ,
a s p r e s i d e n t , has operated Skierka Brothers, Incorpor-
a t e d , as he h a s s e e n f i t , c a r r y i n g on farm and r a n c h
o p e r a t i o n s a t t i m e s and i n manners t h a t he d e t e r m i n e d ,
i n c l u d i n g t h e s e l l i n g o r s t o r a g e of g r a i n c r o p s , t h e
p u r c h a s e of equipment, t h e p u r c h a s e and s a l e of l i v e -
s t o c k and t h e i r o p e r a t i o n s , t h e h i r i n g of employees,
i n c l u d i n g members of h i s f a m i l y , and t h e wages and
s a l a r i e s p a i d , whether i n c a s h o r g r a i n s h a r e s o r
b o t h , t h e r i g h t t o u s e c o r p o r a t e equipment and s u p p l i e s ,
i n c l u d i n g g a s o l i n e and o i l , and i n g e n e r a l a l l o p e r a -
t i o n s whatsoever.
"21. On A p r i l 27, 1977, a s p e c i a l meeting of t h e
board of d i r e c t o r s of S k i e r k a B r o t h e r s , I n c o r p o r a t e d ,
was h e l d a t t h e l a w o f f i c e s of J a r d i n e , Stephenson,
B l e w e t t and Weaver i n G r e a t F a l l s . Present a t the
meeting were a l l of t h e d i r e c t o r s , J e a n n e S k i e r k a ,
A n n e t t e S k i e r k a , John S k i e r k a and B e r n i c e S k i e r k a .
A l s o p r e s e n t were John Weaver and John Stephenson,
c o u n s e l f o r J e a n n e S k i e r k a and A n n e t t e S k i e r k a , and
Don LaBar and P a u l C . Bunn, c o u n s e l f o r S k i e r k a
Brothers, Incorporated. The motion t o c r e a t e a n
e x e c u t i v e v i c e - p r e s i d e n c y w i t h power e q u a l t o t h e
p r e s i d e n t was d e f e a t e d , a s w e l l a s a motion t o ex-
pand t h e board of d i r e c t o r s from f o u r t o f i v e .
"22. The a c t s of Defendant John S k i e r k a have been and
a r e o p p r e s s i v e i n t h a t he h a s r u n t h e c o r p o r a t i o n a s
P r e s i d e n t a s h e h a s s e e n f i t and s i n c e e a r l y i n 1974
h a s d e n i e d t h e P l a i n t i f f s , J e a n n e S k i e r k a and A n n e t t e
S k i e r k a , any p a r t o r v o i c e i n t h e o p e r a t i o n , e i t h e r a s
d i r e c t o r s or a s minority stockholders, except f o r
p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e a n n u a l meeting. "
I n i t s Memorandum on Order Denying P o s t - t r i a l Motions, t h e
court stated: "As f a r as t h e i s s u e of o p p r e s s i o n i s con-
c e r n e d , t h i s C o u r t h a s t a k e n a broad view of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n
of t h i s p r i n c i p l e t o a c l o s e l y - h e l d corporation. The f i n d i n g
of o p p r e s s i o n h e r e i s based on t h e e x c l u s i o n of t h e m i n o r i t y
s t o c k h o l d e r s from p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e
c o r p o r a t i o n , and n o t on a l a c k of p r o b i t y on t h e p a r t of t h e
majority."
Under s e c t i o n 35-1-921, MCA, t h e c o u r t may l i q u i d a t e
t h e c o r p o r a t i o n where t h e a c t s of t h o s e i n c o n t r o l a r e
oppressive. Two key a r e a s o f o p p r e s s i o n may be mentioned.
The f i r s t i s t h e a c t i o n by d e f e n d a n t John and h i s f a m i l y of
f i x i n g t h e s t o c k v a l u a t i o n a t which p l a i n t i f f J e a n n e ' s
f a m i l y may s e l l . The second i s t h e d e f e a t i n g by d e f e n d a n t s
John and B e r n i c e of t h e motion t o c r e a t e a n o f f i c e g i v i n g t o
p l a i n t i f f J e a n n e power e q u a l t o t h a t of d e f e n d a n t John.
Model B u s i n e s s C o r p o r a t i o n Act Annotated second e d i t i o n ,
s e c t i o n 97 a t p . 554, p o i n t s o u t a s f o l l o w s w i t h r e g a r d t o
t h e h i s t o r i c a l r i g h t of t h e c o u r t t o l i q u i d a t e t h e a s s e t s of
a corporation:
"American j u r i s p r u d e n c e h a s c r e a t e d two c a t e g o r i e s
of e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e r u l e t h a t a n e q u i t y c o u r t h a s
no i n h e r e n t r i g h t t o l i q u i d a t e t h e a s s e t s and b u s i -
n e s s of a c o r p o r a t i o n . The f i r s t i s i n a s u i t i n
e q u i t y by s h a r e h o l d e r s who a r e s u f f e r i n g a s a r e s u l t
of t h e c o n d u c t of t h e b u s i n e s s of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n
i n such a way t h a t t h e y can have no e q u i t a b l e r e l i e f
w i t h o u t l i q u i d a t i o n of t h e assets and b u s i n e s s of
the corporation. The second i s i n a b i l l i n - e q u i t y
by a c r e d i t o r who can have no r e l i e f u n l e s s t h e
a s s e t s and b u s i n e s s of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n a r e con-
v e r t e d t o c a s h and o p e r a t i o n s c e a s e d . "
The Model B u s i n e s s C o r p o r a t i o n Act as a d o p t e d i n Montana h a s
extended t h e r u l e s f o r involuntary d i s s o l u t i o n . A s pointed
o u t i n Model B u s i n e s s C o r p o r a t i o n Act Annotated a t p. 554:
"The Model Act p r o v i d e s r u l e s t o c o v e r i n v o l u n t a r y
d i s s o l u t i o n s by s h a r e h o l d e r s by d e f i n i n g f o u r f a c -
t u a l s i t u a t i o n s i n which t h e c o u r t s w i l l have t h e
power t o l i q u i d a t e t h e a s s e t s and b u s i n e s s of t h e
corporation ... Second, t h e c o n t r o l l i n g d i r e c t o r s
o r managers a c t i n g i n a n i l l e g a l , o p p r e s s i v e o r
f r a u d u l e n t manner. While t h e terms ' i l l e g a l ' , 'op-
pressive' or 'fraudulent' a r e subject to judicial
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e y have somewhat l i m i t e d d e f i n i -
t i o n s within a l l jurisdictions."
A l e a d i n g c a s e i n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e Model Act
(Mo App . .
i s F i x v . F i x M a t e r i a l Co. I n c . / 1 9 7 6 ) , 538 S.W.2d 351, i n
which t h e c o u r t makes t h e f o l l o w i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s :
"The I l l i n o i s c o u r t s made i t c l e a r , when c o n s t r u i n g
t h e I l l i n o i s S t a t u t e ( t h e Model f o r s351.485
[ t h e M i s s o u r i s t a t u t e ] ) , t h a t ' o p p r e s s i o n ' i s , i n and
of i t s e l f , a n i n d e p e n d e n t ground f o r r e l i e f n o t r e -
q u i r i n g a showing of f r a u d , i l l e g a l i t y , mismanage-
ment, w a s t i n g of a s s e t s , nor d e a d l o c k , though t h e s e
factors a r e frequently present . . .
" I t h a s o f t e n been s t a t e d t h a t o p p r e s s i o n s u g g e s t s
. . . ' a v i s i b l e d e p a r t u r e from t h e s t a n d a r d s of
f a i r d e a l i n g , and a v i o l a t i o n of f a i r p l a y on which
e v e r y s h a r e h o l d e r who e n t r u s t s h i s money t o a company
i s entitled t o rely. ' ' .. . Such d e f i n i t i o n s a r e
s u g g e s t e d p e r i m e t e r s of t h e broad t e r m r a t h e r t h a n
narrow d e f i n i t i o n s which would t e n d t o r o b t h e t e r m
of i t s u s e f u l f l e x i b i l i t y . A s we r e a d t h e s t a t u t e ,
i t i s i n t e n d e d t h e c o u r t s w i l l p r o c e e d on a case-by
case-basis.'"
Oppression may be more e a s i l y found i n a c l o s e - h e l d ,
family corporation than i n a l a r g e r , public corporation. As
t h e c o u r t s t a t e d i n T h i s t e d v. Tower Management C o r p o r a t i o n
( 1 9 6 6 ) , 147 Mont. 1, 409 P. 2d 813:
" I t i s t o be n o t e d t h a t a c l o s e c o r p o r a t i o n i s one
i n which management and ownership a r e ' s u b s t a n t i a l l y
i d e n t i c a l t o the e x t e n t t h a t it i s u n r e a l i s t i c t o
b e l i e v e t h a t t h e judgment of t h e d i r e c t o r s w i l l be
i n d e p e n d e n t of t h a t of t h e s t o c k h o l d e r s . ' 52 North-
w e s t e r n L . R . 345. By i t s v e r y n a t u r e , i n t r a c o r p o r a t e
problems a r i s i n g i n a c l o s e c o r p o r a t i o n demand t h e
u n u s u a l and e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e m e d i e s a v a i l a b l e o n l y i n
a c o u r t of e q u i t y . " 147 Mont. 1 4 , 409 P.2d 820.
" ' C o u r t s of e q u i t y a r e n o t bound by c a s t - i r o n
rules. The r u l e s by which t h e y a r e governed a r e
f l e x i b l e and a d a p t t h e m s e l v e s t o t h e e x i g e n c i e s of
t h e p a r t i c u l a r case. R e l i e f w i l l be g r a n t e d when,
i n view of a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t o deny i t would
p e r m i t one of t h e p a r t i e s t o s u f f e r a g r o s s wrong
a t t h e hands of t h e o t h e r p a r t y who b r o u g h t a b o u t
the condition ... 1 I1
147 Mont. 1 5 , 4 0 9 P.2d 821.
The e x t e n s i v e and d e t a i l e d f i n d i n g s of f a c t of t h e
D i s t r i c t Court d i s c l o s e f a c t s c l e a r l y s u f f i c i e n t t o support
a c o n c l u s i o n o f o p p r e s s i o n under t h e f o r e g o i n g s t a t u t e and
authorities. The t r i a l of t h i s m a t t e r l a s t e d two and one-
h a l f days. The t r i a l c o u r t had ample o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b s e r v e
t h e w i t n e s s e s and l e a r n of t h e i r problems. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s
f i n d i n g s s h o u l d n o t b e d i s t u r b e d unl-ess w e f i n d t h e y a r e
" c l e a r l y erroneous". W do n o t s o f i n d .
e W e do n o t e t h a t
t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i l l n o t l i q u i d a t e t h e c o r p o r a t i o n b e c a u s e of
o p p r e s s i o n u n l e s s t h e p a r t i e s a r e u n a b l e t o a g r e e upon t h e
p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n and t r a n s f e r t o be made t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s .
CONCLUSION
W e a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s on a l l i s s u e s ,
and remand t h e c a s e f o r p r o c e e d i n g s i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h a t
c o u r t ' s judgment .
I . " Y .
We concur: