Chem-Age Indus., Inc. v. Glover
South Dakota Supreme Court
652 N.W.2d 756 (2002)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Byron Dahl (defendant) convinced Roger Pederson and Garry Shepard (the investors) (plaintiffs) to invest in a new company. The investors pressed Dahl to retain a lawyer to incorporate the business. Dahl engaged Alan Glover (defendant). Glover had represented Dahl in transactions and investor disputes for 20 years and knew of Dahl’s longstanding financial problems. Glover filed articles of incorporation for Chem-Age Industries Inc. (Chem-Age) (plaintiff) and served as registered agent. The investors contributed additional capital once they learned Chem-Age had been incorporated and an attorney was involved. Dahl sent Glover a desk that had been charged on the corporate credit card. Other large credit-card purchases for personal items made the investors suspicious. Dahl assured the investors they would be repaid after Chem-Age’s assets were sold. Glover assisted Dahl in selling the assets through a Dahl entity. The investors were never repaid. Chem-Age and the investors sued Dahl and Glover. Glover moved for summary judgment. Chem-Age and the investors sought summary judgment on whether Glover breached a fiduciary duty owed to them. The court granted summary judgment to Glover. Chem-Age and the investors appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Konenkamp, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.