Postma v. Wedebrand
Scott Postma, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
vs.
Diane Wedebrand, as Guardian and Conservator of Mike Kats, Arvin Brenneman, Harold Vandervliet, and Diane Wedebrand, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
and
Ozone Solutions, Inc., Defendants.
Attorney for Appellants
Jeffrey T. Myers
Attorney for Appellee
James Arnett, William Beck, and Sander Morehead
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Patrick H. Tott, Judge. AFFIRMED ON APPEAL; WRIT SUSTAINED IN PART AND REMANDED. Heard by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ. Opinion by Bower, C.J. (22 pages)
Diane Wedebrand, Mike Kats, Arvin Brenneman, and Harold Vander Vliet appeal the trial court’s ruling in this declaratory judgment action finding Scott Postma is a shareholder of Ozone Solutions, Inc. and was entitled to notice of the meeting held on May 31, 2018. Postma cross-appeals the court’s rulings on his requests for sanctions. OPINION HOLDS: Because Postma was a shareholder and received no notice for the May 31, 2018 meeting, the actions taken at that meeting are void. We affirm on the appeal. We treat the cross-appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, grant the petition, and sustain the writ in part. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination sanctions were to be imposed upon Kats alone for the bad faith presentation of an affidavit under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.981(7). But, because the district court employed the wrong standard in determining whether sanctions should be imposed under rule 1.517(3)(b), we sustain the writ in part and remand for consideration under the correct standard.
