IBJNews

Mike’s Carwash trial awaits closing arguments

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Lawyers on Wednesday finished presenting evidence to determine the true value of Mike’s Carwash Inc. and how much a former co-owner should have been paid for his share in the company.

They will submit closing arguments in writing within the next two weeks to Hamilton Superior Court Judge William Hughes, who heard the trial in Noblesville without a jury. Hughes will make a ruling after receiving the arguments.

The privately held business and principals Bill and Mike Dahm, sons of company founder Joe Dahm, are defendants in the lawsuit brought by Jerry Dahm, a cousin who owned 35 percent of Mike’s until May 2010.

Jerry claims Bill and Mike fired him after 30 years with the company and forced him to sell his shares at an “unfairly low” valuation after Jerry sought to take out a bank loan using his stake in the business as collateral. Bill and Mike are now the only shareholders.

The profitable and fast-growing business with 37 locations in Indiana and Ohio is valued at $49 million, according to the company's appraisals.

Jerry, who lives near Fort Wayne, where Mike’s was founded in 1948, is asking for an independent appraisal of the value, along with a lump-sum buyout offer, damages and attorney’s fees.

As it stands, Jerry is set to receive payments totaling $17.1 million for his stake in Mike’s.

The trial started on March 12.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.

ADVERTISEMENT