From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Courtyard Hairstyling N. v. McCollough

Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District
Jun 29, 1989
540 N.E.2d 129 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)

Opinion

No. 32A04-8806-CV-191.

June 29, 1989.

Appeal from the Hendricks Circuit Court, J.V. Boles, J.

Nathan Fogle, Indianapolis, for appellants.

Susan W. Luthra, Jennings, Maas Stickney, Indianapolis, for appellee.

Before CONOVER and GARRARD, P. JJ., and ROBERTSON, J.


Appellee McCollough and appellant Sharpe are the sole shareholders of Courtyard Hairstyling North, Inc., an Indiana corporation. Each shareholder owns 50%. After the shareholders had a falling out, McCollough commenced this action to dissolve the corporation as deadlocked. See IC 23-1-47-1.

The trial court appointed a receiver to preserve the assets and subsequently entered its order directing that an accounting be made to the receiver, ordering an appraisal be made of the business and establishing a plan for the sale of the business. This interlocutory appeal was perfected from that order.

However, on November 1, 1988 the trial court granted a default judgment against appellants and on May 2, 1989 denied their motion to correct errors and TR 60 motion to set aside the default.

McCollough has moved to dismiss the appeal as moot and appellants have filed no response.

The default judgment necessarily superseded the interlocutory order that constitutes the basis for this appeal. It thereby rendered the issues presented herein moot.

This appeal is therefore dismissed as moot.


Summaries of

Courtyard Hairstyling N. v. McCollough

Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District
Jun 29, 1989
540 N.E.2d 129 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)
Case details for

Courtyard Hairstyling N. v. McCollough

Case Details

Full title:COURTYARD HAIRSTYLING NORTH, INC. AND JERRY SHARPE, APPELLANTS…

Court:Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District

Date published: Jun 29, 1989

Citations

540 N.E.2d 129 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)

Citing Cases

Highland Realty v. Airport Authority

This court has determined that the dismissal of an action dissolves any and all interlocutory orders, and…