RENDERED: JULY 2, 2021; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2020-CA-0042-MR
RONALD K. REEVES APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE STEVE ALAN WILSON, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 19-CI-00885
STEVEN W. REEVES; DENNIS E.
REEVES; LEON TARTER; AND
REEVES FAMILY LLC APPELLEES
OPINION
REVERSING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: DIXON, KRAMER, AND LAMBERT, JUDGES.
LAMBERT, JUDGE: This appeal concerns the liquidation of a family-owned
business and, more specifically, the sale of certain company assets. Ronald K.
Reeves seeks review of the November 25, 2019, order of the Warren Circuit Court
denying his motion to dismiss or hold in abeyance and granting Reeves Family
LLC’s motion for summary judgment and ordering the sale of real property via a
referral to the Master Commissioner. We reverse and remand.
Reeves Family LLC (the Company) is a manager-managed limited
liability company that was formed on December 4, 2000, with its principal office
in Louisville. Steven W. Reeves (Steve) was the Company’s managing member
and the registered agent. The members were three brothers: Steve, Dennis E.
Reeves (Dennis), and Ronald K. Reeves (Ronald).1 Each member had a one-third
ownership interest in the Company. The Company owned real estate either solely
or jointly with Leon Tarter (Tarter). It solely owned property at 2015 Barberry
Court and 3249 Cemetery Road in Bowling Green (Warren County). And it jointly
held property with Tarter on Girkin Road and Memphis Junction Road in Bowling
Green and on Robey Street in Franklin (Simpson County).
The members held a special meeting of the Company on June 17,
2019, pursuant to notice to discuss and vote on whether to dissolve the Company
and wind up its affairs, including selling the real estate it owned and jointly
owned.2 Present at the meeting were counsel for the Company as well as Steve and
Dennis. Ronald was not present but appeared by counsel. Section 7.1.2 of the
1
Their father, Garland Reeves, was the original managing member of the Company. He passed
away in 2005.
2
Pursuant to the deposition testimony, this was apparently prompted by the members’ ages and
out-of-town residencies, making oversight of the properties a problem for them.
-2-
Company’s Operating Agreement states that a vote of members holding 51% or
more of the Company interests is required before it may be dissolved. Steve and
Dennis both voted to dissolve the Company, and counsel for Ronald concurred.
Steve, as the managing member, indicated at the meeting that he would instruct
counsel for the Company to file a petition to seek a judgment and order to have the
Company’s real estate sold by the Master Commissioner. On June 25, 2019, the
Company filed a complaint in the Warren Circuit Court seeking to liquidate the
Company by judicial sale of real estate wholly or jointly owned in both Warren
and Simpson Counties. In their entries of appearance, Dennis, Steve, and Tarter
waived notice of further proceedings and consented to the entry of orders and a
final judgment as sought by the Company.
Ronald, however, contested the complaint and filed an answer and
cross-claim. In his answer, Ronald raised the defenses of Kentucky Rules of Civil
Procedure (CR) 8.03 as a bar to the Company’s complaint and that pursuant to
Article X of the Operating Agreement, the members were to attempt to negotiate
and then mediate any disputes related to the Company prior to filing suit. He also
stated that a Special Commissioner should be appointed to conduct the sale of the
real property and that the proposed judicial sale did not satisfy Article 7.3 of the
Operating Agreement that liquidation should be done in an orderly fashion.
-3-
In Count I of his cross-claim, Ronald alleged that Dennis and Steve
owed him a fiduciary duty to act with utmost care, honesty, undivided loyalty, and
fidelity in the Company’s business dealings. He believed that one of the properties
that had been appraised at $1.1 million was going to be sold well below the fair
market value, causing him to suffer damages. In Count II, Ronald alleged that
Tarter aided and abetted Steve and Dennis in breaching their fiduciary duties. In
Count III, Ronald addressed his request that the Company engage a realty firm to
liquidate the real estate, noting that Steve had indicated at the special meeting that
he would be seeking liquidation via a Master Commissioner’s sale. Ronald
believed that a judicial sale would return a lower price than a private sale, which
would constitute a breach of fiduciary duties by Steve and Dennis. In Count IV,
Ronald alleged that he was owed approximately $100,000.00 in distributions from
the sale of real estate, which was being withheld by Steve and Dennis. This, he
claimed, also constituted a breach of their fiduciary duties to him. Ronald sought
compensatory and punitive damages as a result of the allegations in his cross-
claim. The other parties contested Ronald’s claims in their answers.
On August 2, 2019, the Company filed a notice to take the depositions
of the parties later that month. These depositions were later renoticed for October
16, 2019. The record contains the depositions of Steve, Dennis, and Tarter.
-4-
On October 24, 2019, Ronald filed a motion to dismiss or to hold in
abeyance and require arbitration pursuant to the Operating Agreement. Article X
of the Operating Agreement provides for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and
binding arbitration, and it sets forth the procedure for mediation. It provides in
part as follows:
10.1. Agreement to Use Procedure. The
Members have entered into this Agreement in good faith
and in the belief that it is mutually advantageous to them.
It is with that same spirit of cooperation that they pledge
to attempt to resolve any dispute amicably without the
necessity of litigation. Accordingly, they agree that if
any dispute arises between them relating to this
Agreement (the “Dispute”), they will first utilize the
procedures specified in this Article X (the “Procedure”)
before any additional proceedings.
10.2. Initiation of Procedure. The Member
seeking to initiate the Procedure (the “Initiating
Member”) will give written notice to the other Members.
The notice must describe in general terms the nature of
the dispute and the [I]nitiating Member’s claim for relief.
Additionally, the notice must identify one or more
individuals with authority to settle the dispute on the
Member’s behalf. The Members receiving notice (the
“Responding Member,” whether one or more) will have
five business days within which to designate by written
notice to the Initiating Member, one or more individuals
with authority to settle the dispute on the Member’s
behalf. The individuals so designated will be known as
the “Authorized Individuals.” The Responding Member
may authorize himself or herself as an Authorized
Individual. The Initiating Member and the Responding
Member will collectively be referred to as the “Disputing
Members” or individually as “Disputing Member.”
-5-
By instructing the Company’s counsel to file this action, Ronald argued that Steve
and Dennis violated the ADR procedures in Article X. The Company, likewise,
violated the Operating Agreement by filing the action prior to following the ADR
procedures.
Also on October 24, 2019, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment and for the entry of an order of sale by the Master Commissioner, as well
as a response to Ronald’s motion to dismiss or hold in abeyance. The Company
argued that the Operating Agreement required mediation, not arbitration. It also
argued that there was no dispute between the members prior to the filing of the
action that would bring Article X into relevance, as neither Ronald nor his counsel
raised any objection to Steve’s statement at the conclusion of the special meeting
that he would instruct the Company’s counsel to file this petition to seek a judicial
sale. The procedures under Article X were not invoked until October 15, 2019,
more than three months after the petition was filed. In addition, the Operating
Agreement gave Steve, as the managing member, the power to sell the Company’s
assets without any type of limitation. As to its motion for summary judgment, the
Company stated that there were no genuine issues of material fact as supported by
deposition testimony, noting that Ronald refused to be deposed. It also argued that
Ronald’s request for a Special Master Commissioner would not address his
-6-
concern about notice requirements and his desire to achieve the maximum sales
price for the real estate.
In his response, Tarter supported the Company’s motion for summary
judgment and opposed Ronald’s motion. He argued that he was not a member of
the Company and was not, therefore, bound by any agreements contained in the
Operating Agreement. He also argued that he was entitled to the sale requested by
the Company.
In reply, Ronald stated that the Company, Steve, and Dennis were on
notice of a dispute prior to the filing of the action. Once he knew of Steve’s plan
to sell the real estate via a judicial sale, Ronald communicated his objection, citing
a series of emails beginning June 24, 2019, between the attorneys related to this
issue. He stated that their claim that he did not raise the issue prior to October 15th
was false. Ronald also argued that although Tarter was not a member of the
Company, and therefore not bound by the Operating Agreement, this did not
relieve Steve and Dennis of their obligations under Article X. In the event the
court denied his motion, Ronald argued that a genuine issue of material fact existed
as to whether the judicial sale was being initiated in good faith, which would
preclude summary judgment. He wanted the opportunity to conduct discovery to
support his claims related to bad faith.
-7-
The parties argued their respective positions before the court on
November 4 and 18, 2019. And on November 25, 2019, the circuit court entered a
summary judgment in favor of the Company and denied Ronald’s motion to
dismiss or hold in abeyance. The court found that there were no genuine issues of
material fact with respect to mediation, that no dispute existed when the action was
initiated, and that the managing member had the power to seek a judicial sale.
Because the real property could not be divided without materially impairing its
value, the court ordered that it was to be sold as a whole by the Master
Commissioner of Warren Circuit Court at a judicial sale. This appeal by Ronald
now follows.
On appeal, Ronald argues that the circuit court erred in denying his
motion to dismiss and that summary judgment was premature. The appellees
dispute these arguments in their respective briefs.
Ronald’s first argument addresses whether the circuit court erred in
denying his motion to dismiss or hold the case in abeyance to permit the parties to
follow the ADR procedures in Article X of the Operating Agreement. Our
standard of review of a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to CR 12.02 for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted is set forth in Benningfield v. Pettit
Environmental, Inc., 183 S.W.3d 567, 570 (Ky. App. 2005):
A motion to dismiss should only be granted if “it appears
the pleading party would not be entitled to relief under
-8-
any set of facts which could be proved in support of his
claim.” Pari-Mutuel Clerks’ Union v. Kentucky Jockey
Club, 551 S.W.2d 801, 803 (Ky. 1977). When ruling on
the motion, the allegations in “the pleadings should be
liberally construed in a light most favorable to the
plaintiff and all allegations taken in the complaint to be
true.” Gall v. Scroggy, 725 S.W.2d 867, 868 (Ky. App.
1987). In making this decision, the trial court is not
required to make any factual findings. James v. Wilson,
95 S.W.3d 875, 884 (Ky. App. 2002). Therefore, “the
question is purely a matter of law.” Id. Accordingly, the
trial court’s decision will be reviewed de novo. Revenue
Cabinet v. Hubbard, 37 S.W.3d 717, 719 (Ky. 2000).
With this standard in mind, we shall review Ronald’s argument.
At the outset, we recognize that the circuit court and the appellees
have all either found or argued that no dispute existed among the parties prior to
the filing of the petition in this case and that, therefore, the ADR procedures did
not apply.3 Our review of the record, however, reveals that a dispute certainly
existed as to how the Company property was to be sold prior to the filing of the
lawsuit on June 25, 2019. We shall now set forth the evidence showing that this
dispute existed and should have been known to all parties.
3
The following exchange took place in Steve’s deposition:
Q: Now after this was passed and these minutes approved, did you or the LLC,
the company, ever receive any written notice pursuant to article ten of the
partnership agreement that Ron disputed the action taken?
A: No.
-9-
The May 31, 2019, call of special meeting from Steve to Ronald and
Dennis stated:
Pursuant to § 5.2 of the Reeves Family LLC
Operating Agreement, effective December 22, 2000 (the
“Operating Agreement”), and the authority granted by
Kentucky Revised Statutes § 275.175(6), the undersigned
Managing Member calls a special meeting of the
Members of the Reeves Family LLC (the “Company”) to
be held at the law offices of English, Lucas, Priest &
Owsley, LLP, 1101 College Street, Bowling Green,
Kentucky, on June 17, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. CDT. The
purpose of the meeting will be to consider and vote upon
dissolution and winding up of the Company and
liquidation of its assets, including but not limited to real
estate wholly owned by the Company and real estate
owned in partnership with Leon Tarter. The Members
are hereby directed to Article VII of the Operating
Agreement to review provisions governing the
dissolution and liquidation of the Company. The
Members will discuss and transact such other business as
may properly come before the meeting.
This notice did not contain any information about how the real property was to be
sold, only that the Company assets were to be liquidated. Not until after the vote
to liquidate the Company passed did Steve express his decision to sell the property
via a judicial sale.
Thereafter, a series of email messages was exchanged between
counsel for the parties:
• Email from Sam Lee (counsel for Ronald) to Nathan Vinson (counsel for the
Company) dated June 24, 2019, 1:15 p.m.:
-10-
Nathan – We have had the opportunity to discuss the
liquidation of the Reeves Family LLC’s assets with Ron.
He is concerned that a judicial sale will generate lower
sales prices for the properties than could be obtained via
a private auction. A private auction house will utilize
their experience and contacts to cultivate as much interest
as possible in the properties, as opposed to the master
commission[er] merely running the statutorily required
notice. While there will likely be additional expenses
with a private auction firm, Ron feels that the increased
sales revenue will more than account for the difference.
His goal – which I’m sure is shared by Steve and Dennis
– is to obtain the highest possible sales price for the
LLC’s real properties.
Please consider this a formal request to liquidate the
LLC’s real property via private auction rather than
proceeding with the judicial sale. Ron agrees to
cooperate in any manner required to facilitate
maximizing the value of the LLC’s assets. We would
suggest engaging Kurtz Auction and Realty. They have
an excellent reputation and serve the Bowling Green
area.
• Email from Vinson to Lee dated June 24, 2019, 2:15 p.m.: “Thank you,
Sam. Unfortunately, all other parties still want to file the petition, but of
course, I will consult with them.”
• Email from Lee to Vinson dated June 24, 2019, 2:20 p.m.: “Thanks. I
would appreciate you letting me know their decision prior to filing the
petition.”
• Email from Vinson to Lee dated June 24, 2019, 2:45 p.m.: “Will do. I have
forwarded your e-mail to them.”
-11-
• Email from Vinson to Lee dated June 25, 2019, 9:36 a.m.:
Sam,
The other members and the joint owner still want to file
the petition. I should have it e-filed today.
Will you accept service on behalf of Ron?
Thanks,
Nathan
• Email from Lee to Vinson dated June 25, 2019, 3:05 p.m.:
Nathan – Thanks for getting back to me. Ron is
disappointed . . . in the decision to move forward with the
judicial sale. Based on the circumstances, Ron believes
that these actions are being taken with the intent to
reduce the value of the company assets to allow Steve,
Dennis, and/or Leon Tarter to purchase these properties
at a judicial sale for a greatly reduced basis. There are a
handful of actions that have led Ron to this assumption.
Firstly, judicial sales have historically generated lower
sales prices compared to actual fair market value. This is
why they are generally considered a last resort to
liquidate assets. The justification for using this method –
that Ron would not cooperate – is unpersuasive. Not
only does Ron agree with the liquidation, but even if he
didn’t Steve and Dennis possess the necessary voting
interests to list the properties for private sale. Investors
as sophisticated as Steve, Dennis, and Mr. Tarter
undoubtedly understand that the avenue they are pursuing
will lead to a lower sales price. Ron believes that the
only logical conclusion is that it is their intent to do so.
Secondly, Steve and Dennis explicitly ensured that there
would be no further distributions until after the sales.
Upon obtaining the full financial records, we discovered
the LLC is holding nearly $500,000 in cash assets
-12-
including funds from prior sales. It is difficult to imagine
that there are sufficient pending liabilities to justify such
a cash position. Ron believes that the purpose for
holding his share of prior sales proceeds and foregoing
additional disbursements is intended to deny him access
to funds that he could use to bid against his partners at
the judicial sale.
Thirdly, Ron had 970 Lovers Lane appraised, and the
appraiser valued the property at $1.1 million. This is
more than double the sales price of the 2018 sale between
the LLC/Leon Tarter and an LLC that is owned by Leon
Tarter. In this transaction, the LLC sold company
property far below the market value to benefit an
interested party. This demonstrates that Dennis’s and
Steve’s previous choices have not procured a fair market
return on company property. It further shows that the
property should be marketed and sold by a disinterested
professional in the industry. We have attached a copy of
the appraisal for your review.
Based on the foregoing, Ron demands that the properties
be liquidated via a neutral private realty firm. The hope
is that a real estate professional can curtail any notion of
a systematic, intentional, undervaluation of the remaining
property. If the partners proceed with a judicial sale, Ron
will consider this a breach of Dennis’s and Steve’s
fiduciary duties and will consider all options at his
disposal.
• Email from Vinson to Lee dated June 25, 2019, 4:26 p.m.: “Thank you,
Sam. I will forward this to Steve and Dennis as counsel for the LLC.”
After the Company filed the petition, Ronald specifically cited to
Article X of the Operating Agreement as a defense in his answer, stating that the
-13-
failure to abide by the provision of the article barred the complaint. A few months
later, the following series of emails were exchanged by counsel for the parties:
• Email from Lee to Mark Alcott (counsel for Dennis and Steve), Paul
Lawless (counsel for Tarter), and Charles English (counsel for the
Company) dated October 10, 2019, 1:33 p.m.:
Confidential Settlement Discussion Pursuant to KRE 408
Counsel –
We believe it would be beneficial to discuss a settlement
of this matter before we get too far down the road. Ron
is, and has always been, in agreement with liquidating the
remaining assets and winding up the company. His
request was that it be done in [a] commercially
reasonable fashion rather than at the courthouse steps.
For reasons that remain unclear, this request was
rejected.
In any event, Ron would be willing to release his
counterclaims in return for an agreement to sell the
remaining properties at auction with a qualified
disinterested auction firm, to be completed by a certain
date. I hope the parties agree that this would almost
certainly result in higher sales prices and put more money
in everyone’s pocket.
I look forward to your responses.
• Email from Lee to Alcott, Lawless, and English dated October 15, 2019,
3:35 p.m.: “Insofar as we are at least discussing the possibility of a
resolution, I suggest that we postpone the depositions. If anything, they may
-14-
be counter-productive to reaching an agreement. Please advise if this is
agreeable.”
• Email from Lawless to Lee, Alcott, and English dated October 15, 2019,
4:05 p.m.:
I have now spoken with Attorneys English and Alcott
this afternoon following my conversation with you. The
collective judgment is to move forward with the
depositions tomorrow as scheduled. However, as you
discussed with Mark today, we are more than willing to
keep the lines of communication open as to settlement.
I look forward to seeing everyone at ELPO tomorrow
morning.
• Email from Lee to Lawless, Alcott, and English dated October 15, 2019,
4:22 p.m.:
In that case my client intends to enforce Article 10 of the
Reeves Family LLC operating agreement which requires
mediation prior to litigation, as reserved in the Answer.
Ron will not participate in the depositions or discovery
until the mediation procedures have been observed. If
necessary, we will file the appropriate motion to compel
the arbitration in the agreement.
While this exchange occurred after the petition was filed, it supports the fact that
Ronald’s dispute was raised prior to its filing.
Based upon these communications, the fact that a dispute existed
between the parties prior to the Company’s filing of the instant petition is clear,
and the circuit court’s finding that no dispute existed at the time it was initiated is
-15-
simply not supported by the record. We note that the Operating Agreement does
not require that Article X must be invoked prior to the filing of litigation; it merely
states that a dispute must exist. And the record supports Ronald’s claim that a
dispute existed before the Company filed the petition in this case.
However, we do not believe that this supports the dismissal of the
petition. Rather, the circuit court should have granted the alternative motion and
held the petition in abeyance while the parties pursued the ADR procedures set
forth in Article X of the Operating Agreement.
Based upon this holding, the circuit court’s grant of summary
judgment in this case was premature and must be reversed. As such, we need not
address Ronald’s bad faith and breach of fiduciary duty claims. If necessary, these
issues may be revisited at a later date.
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Warren Circuit Court
granting the Company’s motion for summary judgment and denying Ronald’s
motion to dismiss or hold in abeyance is reversed, and this matter is remanded to
permit the parties to mediate the dispute as to how the real property should be sold
pursuant to Article X of the Company’s Operating Agreement.
ALL CONCUR.
-16-
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEES STEVEN
W. REEVES AND DENNIS E.
Samuel B. Lee REEVES:
Owensboro, Kentucky
Mark D. Alcott
Bowling Green, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LEON
TARTER:
Paul T. Lawless
Ian A. Loos
Bowling Green, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE REEVES
FAMILY LLC:
Charles E. English
Joye Beth Spinks
Bowling Green, Kentucky
-17-