The Iowa Court of Appeals addressed Oppression, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Freeze Out, and Judicial Dissolution in Jochimsen v. Wapsi Hunting Club, Inc., 803 N.W.2d 672 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011) (CLICK HERE FOR THE OPINION). As described below, among other issues, the Jochimsen opinion confirms that Iowa courts consider the reasonable expectations doctrine when determining whether oppression is or has occurred. For more reading on oppression click here.
In Jochimsen, the Plaintiff, Paul Jochimsen, a member in an Iowa corporation, alleged four members of the Wapsi Hunting Club, Inc. (the Defendant) engaged in oppressive conduct:
Club member Paul Jochimsen asserts the four members acted oppressively when they amended the corporation’s governing documents, admitted new member James Williams, and declined to adopt several of Jochimsen’s proposals.
Jochimsen, 803 N.W.2d 672, * 1. Based upon the allegations, Jochimsen requested the court dissolve the corporation or grant alternative equitable relief, including canceling Williams’s membership.
The trial court entered judgment in favor of Defendants and Jochimsen appealed.
On appeal, the Iowa Court of Appeals analyzed several intra-corporate dispute issues; including, factors that an Iowa court will evaluate when determining whether oppression is, or has occurred. Based upon the claims in Jochimsen, the court analyzed the following factors to determine whether Jochimsen was oppressed: (1) Whether the Defendants’ challenged actions “ran contrary to their fiduciary duties;” (2) Whether the Plaintiff was denied his “reasonable expectations;” and (3) Whether the Defendants’ challenged actions “imposed upon [Jochimsen] burdensome, harsh, and wrongful conduct.” Id. at * 1
Reviewing the case de novo, the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s findings. Specifically, that Jochimsen failed to prove “the majority committed oppressive acts.” Id. at *3. A review of the opinion, which can be found here, explains how and why the facts and allegations fail to amount to oppression.
The Iowa Court of Appeals also addressed whether a corporate freeze-out occurred. The court stated: “[a] freeze-out occurs when controlling members deny a minority member his or her rightful interest in the corporation.” Based upon the facts in Jochimsen, the court found that Jochimsen was not “‘completely frozen out’ of the membership process.” Id. at * 7. The court further concluded that Jochimsen “cannot be frozen out of benefits to which he is not entitled.” Id. As such, he was not entitled to relief.
For individuals holding an interest in an Iowa business and/or those who are curious about that status of proving corporate oppression in Iowa, the opinion contains helpful insight and citations to other relevant authority.
Innovative Litigation, L.L.C., as owner and host of this site, and Matthew McKinney as the author (acting on behalf of and through Innovative Litigation, L.L.C.) cannot and does not warrant the accuracy or reliability of the information presented on or through this site. The law can and does change over time and the information contained herein may not reflect the most recent laws – whether statutory law, administrative law, case law, constitutional law, or otherwise. The information on this website does not constitute legal advice and readers should not rely on it to solve problems or other matters. Further, you should seek licensed counsel in the appropriate legal jurisdiction before taking any action. Any information provided on this site is presented “As Is” for your personal curiosity and enjoyment. It is not meant to be relied upon for legal advice, counsel, or for any other purposes. Such information does not take the place of a lawyer. Rules and laws differ by jurisdiction and the information contained within this website may not apply in your jurisdiction. The appearance of articles, listings, or ads, by or for professionals, on this site, does not constitute an endorsement. In all cases, you are responsible for determining the quality of services, information, and/or advice provided by professionals through, or as a consequence of, your use of this site. Neither liability nor responsibility shall arise to any person or entity with respect to loss or damage caused (or alleged to be caused), directly or indirectly, by information posted on this website, or by reason of contact with a professional listed on, or posting information to, this site. No attorney-client relationship is formed by viewing this website and practice is limited to jurisdiction where lawyers are admitted. The information furnished on the website is only general and not a substitute for personalized legal advice. Legal advice cannot be given without full consideration of all relevant information relating to the individual(s) situation. Laws can change daily and new laws may, and likely will, affect the accuracy of the information herein. The information herein may be outdated and replaced by new law.
If you are seeking representation, please read the following notice before sending an e-mail:
Sending an e-mail will not make you a client. Until an agreement regarding representation is reached with you, anything you send will not be confidential or privileged. Before representation can occur, a lawyer will first take you through the conflict of interest procedure and see that you are put in touch with the lawyer best suited to handle your matter.
If you proceed with an e-mail, you confirm that you have read and understood this notice.