Opinion ID: 2633044
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Approval of Bylaws

Text: The Physicians jointly, and Dr. Zepick in a separate appellate brief, also contend that several of themspecifically, Drs. Rumisek, Bajaj, Reader, and Zepickwere not present at the February 2000 meeting of CHW shareholders and, therefore, did not vote in favor of the redemption provision. Further, they argue they did not agree to and, as a result, are not subject to the redemption provision. These arguments stem from the district court's application of K.S.A. 17-6426(b), which provides that [n]o restriction so imposed shall be binding with respect to the securities issued prior to the adoption of the restriction unless the holders of the securities are parties to an agreement or voted in favor of the restriction. The district court found it was uncontroverted that these Physicians later voted to approve CHW's amended bylaws on the December 2000 voting form. Further, the district court concluded as a matter of law this subsequent vote was the equivalent of voting in February 2000 in favor of the restrictive bylaw provision. The Physicians argue this ruling was erroneous because it did not consider the evidence in the light most favorable to them as the party opposing summary judgment. It is well established that, in order to create a contract, an acceptance must be unconditional and unequivocal. Nungesser v. Bryant, 283 Kan. 550, 568, 153 P.3d 1277 (2007). Under the uncontroverted facts of this case, there is written evidence of an unconditional and unequivocal acceptance of a proposed corporate bylaw amendment and that acceptance created a contract binding upon the shareholders. That determination is based upon a written instrument that is unambiguous and cannot be modified by parole evidence. The voting form stated: I, _________, have read and understand the Proposed Revision to the Second Paragraph of Article Four of the Articles of Incorporation of Cardiac Health of Wichita, Inc., as attached in Exhibit A; and the Amended and Restated Bylaws for Cardiac Health of Wichita, Inc., as attached in Exhibit B. `I hereby indicate my preference below and vote to: ____ Approve ____ Disapprove The Physicians' argument is based upon the fact that the attachmentsExhibits A and Bwere versions of the articles and bylaws showing additions and deletions that accommodated adding anesthesiologists as shareholders. The provisions that had been adopted in February 2000including section 1.5(e)were not underlined or highlighted in any way. If we were considering amendments to the articles of incorporation, the Physicians' argument would have some validity; the voting form asked for approval or disapproval of the proposed revision to the second paragraph of Article Four. In contrast, the form did not ask for approval or disapproval of the revisions to the bylaws. Rather, it asked for approval or disapproval of the Amended and Restated Bylaws, an 11-page document that included the disputed text of section 1.5(e). We agree with the district court's conclusion. The undisputed facts establish that the Physicians approved the bylaws and, in doing so, agreed to be bound by section 1.5(e)'s limitations on ownership.