Court Opinion

ID: 9574197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:03:15.065304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:13.078859
License: Public Domain

Gunter, Justice,
dissenting.
I think the complaint in this case stated a claim for declaratory relief against proper adverse parties. I therefore dissent.
City Land Company, a corporation, conveyed land subject to restrictive covenants that could only be dissolved or abrogated with the consent of the grantor, the corporation. The corporation was wholly owned by Louis N. Shahan and Verda B. Shahan. After the death of Mr. Shahan the corporation was dissolved by the personal representatives of his estate, the appellees here and the defendants in the trial court. The complaint alleged that since the appellees dissolved the corporation, they are proper parties defendant in the case.
Since the corporation was the only party that could eliminate the restrictive covenants, and since it is now dissolved and non-existent, it is clear that it cannot be a party in an action brought to remove the restrictive covenants. However, some party must stand in its place, and, in my opinion, our law wisely provides for such a substitution. The complaint alleges that the appellees brought about the dissolution of the corporation, and it is my view that the appellees now stand in the place of the corporation as representatives and agents of the owners of all the shares of the corporation when it was in existence.
Code Ann. § 22-4111 provides: "Suits for the enforcement of any demand or cause of action due by a dissolved corporation may tó a like extent be instituted and enforced against it in any court having jurisdiction thereof at the time of its dissolution, and service thereof may be perfected either by seizure of the property of such corporation, by any form of legal process, or by serving with process issued upon said suits any person who, as an agent or officer of such corporation, was subject to be served as its officer or agent at the time of such dissolution.”
*176Since I think the complaint stated a proper claim for declaratory relief, and since I think the appellees were proper adverse parties in this action for declaratory relief, I would reverse the judgment of the trial court.
I respectfully dissent.