Glenn v. Wagner
1985 N.C. LEXIS 1540, 329 S.E.2d 326, 313 N.C. 450 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A dominant corporation can be held liable for the torts of an affiliated subservient corporation under the instrumentality rule if it exercises such complete control that the subservient entity is a mere shell with no separate identity, even without proof that the dominant corporation controlled the specific transaction causing the harm.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs were wrongfully evicted from the Salem Manor Motel.
- B-Bom, Inc., co-owned by David Wagner, owned the Salem Manor Motel property.
- B-Bom leased the motel to D & S Enterprises, which operated the business.
- David Wagner was the sole subscribing shareholder of D & S, which was established primarily to benefit his cousin, Smilie Wagner, who managed the motel's daily operations.
- D & S paid the bulk of its rents and profits to B-Bom under the lease agreement.
- D & S failed to observe corporate formalities, such as holding board meetings or adopting by-laws, and its corporate office was David Wagner's law office, the same as B-Bom's.
- The lease agreement between B-Bom and D & S, which constituted D & S's only business, was executed before D & S was formally incorporated.
- After the eviction, D & S was left with no assets to satisfy the judgment against it.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Glenn and Hood sued Smilie Wagner, D & S Enterprises, and B-Bom, Inc. in a North Carolina trial court for wrongful eviction.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, specifically finding that B-Bom, Inc. so dominated and controlled D & S Enterprises that its separate corporate entity should be disregarded.
- Defendants appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals found the trial court's jury instruction on the instrumentality rule to be erroneous and ordered a new trial.
- The plaintiffs appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the instrumentality rule, is a dominant affiliated corporation liable for the torts of a subservient corporation when the subservient corporation is operated as a mere shell, even if the dominant corporation did not exercise control over the specific transaction that caused the injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Branch, Chief Justice
Yes. A dominant affiliated corporation is liable for the torts of a subservient corporation operated as a mere shell. Where one affiliated corporation is so dominated by another that it has no separate mind, will, or identity of its own, the analysis of control need not be narrowly limited to the particular transaction that caused the injury. The court found plenary evidence that D & S was, from its inception, nothing more than a tool of B-Bom, lacking any separate identity. Factors supporting this conclusion included D & S's lack of adequate capitalization, non-compliance with corporate formalities, and the fact that its sole function was to collect rent for B-Bom. Because B-Bom exercised such complete control over the existence and function of D & S, it is deemed to have had notice of the wrongful eviction, making it liable under the instrumentality rule.
Analysis:
This decision expands the application of the instrumentality rule in North Carolina beyond the traditional parent-subsidiary context to include 'affiliated' or 'sister' corporations with common ownership. It establishes that for piercing the corporate veil, the 'complete domination' prong does not strictly require proof of control over the specific wrongful act if the subservient corporation is shown to be a mere shell with no independent existence. This lowers the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs in cases where corporate structures are used to shield assets, focusing the court's inquiry on the overall reality of the corporate relationship rather than just the single transaction in dispute.

Unlock the full brief for Glenn v. Wagner