Danziger v. Luse, Unpublished Decision (9-20-2002)
This text of Danziger v. Luse, Unpublished Decision (9-20-2002) (Danziger v. Luse, Unpublished Decision (9-20-2002)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
{¶ 2} Appellants assert the following single assignment of error on appeal:
{¶ 3} "The trial court erred in the Judgment Entry in denying Appellants' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment."
{¶ 4} Appellants sought to inspect and copy the corporate minutes of Croghan Bancshares, Inc. and Croghan Colonial Bank. Appellants own shares of Croghan Bancshares, Inc. Croghan Bancshares, Inc. is the sole owner of all of the shares of Croghan Colonial Bank. Both Croghan Bancshares, Inc and Croghan Colonial Bank share the same headquarters and officers.
{¶ 5} The trial court found that Croghan Bancshares, Inc. complied with R.C.
{¶ 6} On appeal, appellants argue that it should have the right under R.C.
{¶ 7} R.C.
{¶ 8} "Any shareholder of the corporation, * * *, shall have the right to examine in person * * *, the articles of the corporation, its regulations, its books and records of account, minutes, and records of shareholders aforesaid, and voting trust agreements, if any, on file with the corporation, * * *."
{¶ 9} R.C.
{¶ 10} "(C) Any shareholder of the bank, upon written demand stating the specific purpose of the demand, has the right to examine in person or by agent or attorney at any reasonable time and for any reasonable and proper purpose, the books and records of the bank, except books and records of deposit, agency or fiduciary accounts, loan records, and other records relating to customer services or transactions."
{¶ 11} Appellants argue that this court must interpret these statutes to determine whether they permit a shareholder of the parent corporation/bank to have access to the records of a wholly owned subsidiary. We decline to do so because the statutes in this case are unambiguous and, therefore, must be applied as written. Ohio Council 8,Am. Fedn. of State, Cty. Mun. Emp., AFL-CIO v. Cincinnati (1994),
{¶ 12} Having found that the trial court did not commit error prejudical to appellants, the judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, appellants are hereby ordered to pay the court costs incurred on appeal.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Peter M. Handwork, J., James R. Sherck, J., and Richard W. Knepper,J., CONCUR.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Danziger v. Luse, Unpublished Decision (9-20-2002), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/danziger-v-luse-unpublished-decision-9-20-2002-ohioctapp-2002.