Lexplug logoLexplug

Eagle v. Benefield-Chappell, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida
10 Fla. L. Weekly 2181, 476 So.2d 716 (1985)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The unauthorized expenditure of funds deposited for a specific purpose constitutes conversion, and the corporate veil may be pierced to hold individual shareholders liable when a corporation is used to perpetrate fraud or for an unjust purpose.


Facts:

  • Manny and Helen Eagle contracted with Benefield-Chappell, Inc., a decorating firm owned by Virginia Chappell and Derrell Benefield, to furnish their condominium.
  • The contract required the Eagles' written approval before any furniture purchases and specified the firm's compensation as a percentage above cost.
  • The Eagles made two $50,000 payments, totaling $100,000, as deposits for the express and sole purpose of ordering furniture.
  • Benefield-Chappell hired a builder for construction work at a cost of $27,908, but created a fraudulent invoice on the builder's stationery billing the Eagles $32,791 for the same work, and then added its design fee to the inflated amount.
  • The Eagles never signed the confirmations required to approve any furniture purchases.
  • After the contract was terminated, Benefield-Chappell refused to return the full $100,000 deposit.
  • The corporate bank account holding the Eagles' deposit was depleted at various times, dropping as low as $22,000.
  • Benefield-Chappell, Inc. had not formally issued stock, and its two shareholders, Chappell and Benefield, kept no minutes of their meetings.

Procedural Posture:

  • Manny and Helen Eagle sued Benefield-Chappell, Inc., Derrell Benefield, and Virginia Chappell in a Florida trial court.
  • After a non-jury trial, the trial court entered a final judgment against the corporation, Benefield-Chappell, Inc., for breach of contract in the amount of $79,586.09.
  • The trial court found in favor of the individual defendants, Benefield and Chappell, ruling that the corporate veil should not be pierced.
  • The trial court also ruled against the Eagles on their claim for conversion.
  • The Eagles, as plaintiffs-appellants, appealed the final judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a decorating firm and its sole shareholders commit conversion and warrant piercing the corporate veil when the firm refuses to return a client's deposit intended for a specific purpose and uses the corporate form to perpetrate fraud by deliberately inflating construction costs?


Opinions:

Majority - Rivkind, Leonard, Associate Judge

Yes. The retention and unauthorized expenditure of funds deposited for a specific purpose constitutes conversion, and the corporate veil must be pierced to hold shareholders personally liable when their corporation is used for a fraudulent or unjust purpose. The $100,000 deposit was provided for the sole purpose of purchasing furniture, which required the Eagles' written authorization. When Benefield-Chappell spent portions of that money and refused to return the balance upon contract termination, it committed conversion. It is irrelevant that the funds were commingled or that the defendants lacked a specific intent to permanently deprive the Eagles of the money. Furthermore, while corporate formalities like issuing stock were not followed, the determinative factor for piercing the corporate veil is the use of the corporation for an improper purpose. The deliberate inflation of the contractor's bill was a fraudulent and unjust act, justifying holding Chappell and Benefield personally liable.



Analysis:

This case clarifies two important commercial law principles. First, it reinforces that money can be the subject of conversion if the funds are identifiable and designated for a specific purpose, broadening the tort's application beyond tangible property. Second, it affirms the 'improper purpose' doctrine for piercing the corporate veil, establishing that overt acts of fraud, such as intentional overbilling, are sufficient grounds to disregard the corporate entity and impose personal liability on shareholders. This precedent makes it more difficult for owners of closely held corporations to use the corporate form as a shield to protect themselves from the consequences of their own fraudulent conduct.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Eagle v. Benefield-Chappell, Inc. (1985) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Eagle v. Benefield-Chappell, Inc.