ILNews

COA reverses piercing of corporate veil, but upholds slander of title finding

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Hendricks County storage facility’s claims of breach of contract and slander of title were affirmed on appeal against a contractor hired by the facility to provide excavation services. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the piercing of Country Contractors Inc.’s corporate veil to find its two shareholders personally liable.

A Westside Storage of Indianapolis Inc. hired Country Contractors in August 2007 and work began in summer of 2008. Country shareholders Jahn and Stephen Songer were not involved in the contract negotiations as another employee worked with Westside. Country then subcontracted out most of the work. It left the worksite without completing the job and didn’t pay several subcontractors.

Those subcontractors filed mechanic’s liens, which Westside paid. It had to hire another company to complete the job. Complicating the matter is that Country filed a notice of intent to hold a mechanic’s lien on Westside’s property in the amount of the total owed to the subcontractors.

Westside sued, alleging breach of contract and slander of title, and it requested piercing of the corporate veil to hold the Songers personally liable.

The trial court ruled in favor of Westside and against Country and the Songers personally, awarding $117,000 in damages, which consisted of costs to complete the project, prejudgment interest, attorney fees and damages for delay of the project caused by Country’s breach.

In Country Contractors, Inc., Stephen Songer, and Jahn Songer v. A Westside Storage of Indianapolis, Inc., 32A01-1304-CC-155, the Court of Appeals reversed the piercing of the corporate veil, finding that the Songers did not use the corporation to engage in misconduct to their own benefit. Westside also failed to establish that Country’s dwindling capital was due to anything other than a general downturn in the economy or construction industry, Judge Terry Crone wrote.

Crone also noted that lack of recourse because Country is now bankrupt is “simply not a proper basis for piercing the corporate veil.”

The judges affirmed the slander of title finding with respect to Country, however. When Country filed its lien claim, both the subcontractors’ lien claims and the release of lien based on Westside’s direct payment to the subcontractors were on file in the county records. As such, Country had constructive notice of those entries, and its filing of an invalid lien claim constitutes evidence sufficient to support the finding that it slandered Westside’s title.

The $17,500 in attorney fees award is reasonable, but the COA remanded for further proceedings regarding delay damages and prejudgment interest because the nearly $34,000 amount adopted by the trial court was speculative.
 

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 Indiana Lawyer 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT