Skip to main content

Poinette R. Godfrey and Jordan A. Godfrey-Stovall v. Security Service Federal Credit Union

Tex. App.—8th Dist.December 7, 2011No. 08-10-00312-CVCited 21 times

Case Details

Judge(s)
McClure, Rivera, Antcliff
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The trial court granted Security Service Federal Credit Union's motion for summary judgment on all of the appellants' claims, and the appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the trial court's decision.

Similar Rulings

Security Service Federal Credit Union v. Michelle Rodriguez
Tex. App.—8th Dist.Apr 2020
Unresolvable
Security Service Federal Credit Union v. Michelle Rodriguez
Tex. App.—8th Dist.Apr 2020
Unresolvable
Security Service Federal Credit Union v. Michelle Rodriguez
Tex. App.—8th Dist.Mar 2020
Unresolvable
Daniel J. Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Russell Rinchiuso, Richard Cotugno and Ron Roeill
2nd CircuitJun 2002
Mixed Result
Tisch
COLOCTAPPMar 2019

Corporations—Shareholder Derivative Action—Closely Held Corporation—Civil Theft—Piercing the Corporate Veil—Alter Ego—Dividends and Distributions—Statute of Limitations. Father assigned his stock in the Liquor Barn, Ltd. (Liquor Barn) to his son Gary, who was the company's sole director and majority shareholder. The two other Tisch siblings (the Tisch siblings) held nonvoting shares in Liquor Barn. The Tisch siblings filed a complaint against Gary alleging various causes of action related to his fiduciary duties. A jury found that Gary had committed civil theft against the Tisch siblings individually and against Liquor Barn by using the Liquor Barn profits for his private use. It awarded the Tisch siblings treble damages on the civil theft claim. The trial court entered judgment against Gary and Liquor Barn and awarded the Tisch siblings costs and attorney fees. Gary moved to amend the judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in piercing the corporate veil and that this error would prejudice Liquor Barn's creditors. He then filed a combined motion for new trial and relief from judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in disqualifying his expert witness and in piercing the corporate veil. The trial court denied the postjudgment motions and awarded the Tisch siblings attorney fees that exceeded the lodestar. On appeal, Gary contended that the trial court erroneously found that he, as an individual, and the Liquor Barn were "alter egos." Here, the record shows that Gary comingled his personal and other business funds with the Liquor Barn's funds, kept inadequate corporate records, routinely disregarded the legal formalities of declaring shareholder distributions and filing taxes related to payments he made to himself, and used corporate funds for noncorporate purposes and Gary's position as controlling and sole voting shareholder facilitated his misuse of Liquor Barn's funds. The record also shows that Gary used the corporate fiction to defeat the Tisch sibling

Plaintiff Win

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.