Bradford, J.
In 2019, James McConnell filed a derivative shareholder lawsuit against Martha Doan, Marilyn Hall, David Fee, Jerome Henry, Jr., Thomas B. Walsh, Tim Miller, and Nicolas Ciocca (collectively, “Appellees”), who comprised the then-board of directors of F. McConnell & Sons (“FMS”). In May of 2022, McConnell and Appellees executed a settlement agreement (“the Agreement”), pursuant to which FMS would redeem shares held by McConnell and sever his connection with the company. McConnell, however, began refusing to perform according to the terms of the Agreement and was eventually held in contempt of court for failure to obey several court orders. In the commercial court’s contempt order, it, inter alia, appointed a commercial court master (“CCM”) pursuant to Indiana Commercial Court Rule 5 and Indiana Rule of Trial Procedure 70 to take the necessary steps to satisfy McConnell’s contractual obligations. McConnell contends that the commercial court abused its discretion in appointing a CCM pursuant to Commercial Court Rule 5 and Trial Rule 70 and that the Agreement is an unenforceable “agreement to agree” at a later date. Because we disagree with both contentions, we affirm.
…..
We have little hesitation in concluding that the commercial court acted within its discretion pursuant to Commercial Court Rule 5 when it appointed CCM Beck. The commercial court’s order does nothing more than grant CCM Beck the power to do the things that McConnell has been ordered to do but has refused—and only those things. Moreover, it is clear that CCM Beck’s appointment will materially assist the commercial court in resolving the case in a just and timely manner, as McConnell’s continuing refusal to do things he has been ordered to do—and, by the way, agreed to do by executing the Agreement—prevents the case from being resolved. [Footnote omitted.] The commercial court did not abuse its discretion in appointing CCM Beck pursuant to Commercial Court Rule 5.
B. Trial Rule 70
Trial Rule 70 provides, in part, as follows:
If a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance of land, or other property or to deliver deeds or other documents or to perform any other specific act and the party fails to comply within the time specified, the court may direct the act to be done at the cost of the disobedient party by some other person appointed by the court and the act when so done has like effect as if done by the party.
We review a commercial court’s grant of relief under Trial Rule 70 for an abuse of discretion. Analytical Eng’g, Inc. v. Baldwin Filters, Inc., 425 F.3d 443, 449 (7th Cir. 2005). Trial Rule 70 gives a commercial court distinct and limited power to handle parties who refuse to comply with orders to perform specific acts. 22B Ind. Prac., Civil Trial Rule Handbook § 70:1.
We again have little hesitation in concluding that the commercial court did not abuse its discretion in this regard. The record indicates clearly that McConnell refused to act in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, stipulate to the appointment of Greenwich as a CCM to complete the per share valuation, execute the engagement letter with Greenwich, and unwind his purported transfers of shares. McConnell’s refusal to obey any of the commercial court’s specific instructions resulted in his being held in contempt of court, which had no effect on his recalcitrance. The commercial court appointed CCM Beck to step into McConnell’s shoes and perform the specific acts that McConnell purposely failed to complete, which is clearly within the authority granted to it by Trial Rule 70. [Footnote omitted.]
….
We affirm the judgment of the commercial court.
Riley, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.