Robin Fletcher, Individually and as of the Estate of Robert W. Fletcher v. Intellectual Property Control Corporation

• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky
• Decided: February 13, 2026
• Docket: 2023-CA-1336
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

RENDERED: FEBRUARY 13, 2026; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2023-CA-1336-MR

ROBIN FLETCHER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT W. FLETCHER APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE MITCH PERRY, JUDGE ACTION NO. 22-CI-001683

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONTROL CORPORATION APPELLEE

OPINION AFFIRMING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: ACREE, A. JONES, AND KAREM, JUDGES.

ACREE, JUDGE: Intellectual Property Control Corporation (IPCC) initiated this

action in Jefferson Circuit Court seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive

relief to resolve a dispute with Robin Fletcher, Individually and subsequently as

Executrix of the Estate of Robert W. Fletcher (Fletcher), regarding IPCC’s right to repurchase her decedent’s IPCC stock as established in a Stock Restriction

Agreement. In January 2023, the circuit court entered judgment that IPCC could

enforce that right. Fletcher did not timely appeal. Fletcher largely argues against

that final and now non-appealable judgment, but the only reviewable arguments

are those relating to issues of IPCC’s post-judgment efforts in aid of execution

which the circuit court also decided in favor of IPCC. On those issues, we affirm.

Understanding this appeal requires understanding its procedure. After

Robert Fletcher died, IPCC petitioned to have the court declare its right to

repurchase his shares. The circuit court ruled in IPCC’s favor. Fletcher moved

pursuant to CR1 59 to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment and the circuit court

denied the motion. No appeal was taken within thirty days of that denial.

Fletcher’s CR 59 motion also asked the court to add finality language

to the judgment pursuant to CR 54.02. However, that was unnecessary because the

judgment resolved all the issues between the parties relative to the rights pursued

in IPCC’s petition. To quote the circuit court’s judgment, it resolved “a dispute

about the value of shares in a closely held entity, who determines that value, and

who runs the company, when the majority shareholder dies.” (Record (R.) 480). It

specifically found IPCC timely exercised its right to repurchase the subject shares

and concluded the shares’ actual value was $478,477.33. (R. 402–27).

1 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.

-2- Fletcher subsequently filed repetitive post-judgment motions, but

none suspended the running of time to appeal the judgment. A “second post-

judgment motion d[oes] not stay the time for filing a notice of appeal.” Mollett v.

Trustmark Ins. Co., 134 S.W.3d 621, 624 (Ky. App. 2003). When Fletcher filed a

notice of appeal following denial of one of those repetitive motions, this Court

dismissed it. Robin Fletcher and Robin Fletcher, as Executrix of the Estate of

Robert W. Fletcher v. Intellectual Property Control Corporation, No. 2023-CA-

0848-MR (Ky. App. Feb. 2, 2024).

At that point, the judgment had long been final and non-appealable,

and every issue identified above, and more, had been laid to rest. IPCC then

pursued executing on its judgment. On September 8, 2023, in accordance with the

corporation’s governing share restrictions the circuit court recognized as the

procedure to be followed, IPCC sent Fletcher notification of its intention to “close

on the shares” on September 18, 2023. (R. 983). It was IPCC’s fourth attempt to

arrange the closing. For the fourth time, Fletcher failed to appear.

IPCC then filed a “Motion to Enforce Judgment.” Fletcher responded

with a counter motion effectively attempting, once again, to relitigate issues

already resolved, and finally so, by the January 3, 2023 judgment. The circuit

court entered an Order granting IPCC’s motion and denying Fletcher’s. The Order

states, in pertinent part: “[IPCC] has the right to exercise its option under the Stock

-3- Restriction Agreement, and clearly wishes to do so. [Fletcher] is obligated to

comply with that and not engage in pedantic and dilatory actions to prevent it.” (R.

1127). This is the Order Fletcher appeals.

We find no error here. When post-judgment enforcement is needed,

CR 70 provides the court with a formidable tool to accomplish it. Though the

court did not cite that rule, it was surely applying it. Its further use may be

unnecessary if, as IPCC alludes, the shares have now been transferred.

The Jefferson Circuit Court’s November 6, 2023, Opinion and Order

granting IPCC’s motion to enforce the judgment is affirmed.

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Robert R. Waters Matt P. Dearmond David C. Blandford Dennis D. Murrell Cheryl R. Winn Jennifer M. Barbour Louisville, Kentucky Louisville, Kentucky

-4-