Opinion ID: 880592
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dissenter's Rights

Text: The District Court found that one of the bases of Daniels' right to an appraisal was a corporate resolution to pay Daniels for his shares, thus, triggering the following provision: Any shareholder of a corporation shall have the right to dissent from and to obtain payment for his shares in the event of any of the following corporate actions: . . . . . (e) any other corporate action taken pursuant to a shareholder vote with respect to which the ... resolution of the board of directors directs that dissenting shareholders have a right to obtain payment of their shares. Section 35-1-810(1)(e), MCA. The District Court's ruling is unsupported by the evidence presented. No such corporate resolution was entered into the record. Thomas testified that he was authorized to offer up to $35,000 for Daniels' stock, but there was no testimony that Thomas was directed to purchase the stock. Exhibit 19c is a stockholder letter dated September 24, 1986, authorizing Jack Holland, an employee of TD & H, to settle any and all claims against T & D Properties. It is not a board resolution directing purchase of Daniels' stock. Moreover, the requirements of § 35-1-810(1)(e), MCA, were not satisfied. This section clearly contemplates corporate action pursuant to a shareholder vote from which a shareholder dissents, followed by a resolution of the board of directors directing that such dissenter has a right to withdraw his investment and obtain payment for his shares. That is not what occurred in this case.