Smith v. McLeod Distributing, Inc.
744 N.E.2d 459, 2000 Ind. App. LEXIS 2126, 2000 WL 1874264 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may disregard the legal fiction of separate corporate entities and hold one corporation liable for the debts of a related or affiliated corporation when the two entities are operated as a single enterprise or as mere alter egos of each other, creating potential unfairness to third parties.
Facts:
- Michael B. Smith was the president of two corporations: Colonial Industrial Products Company, Inc. ('Colonial Industrial') and Colonial Mat Company, Inc. ('Colonial Mat').
- Shortly after its incorporation in 1987, Colonial Mat applied for a line of credit with McLeod Distributing, Inc. ('McLeod'), a wholesale floor covering distributor.
- McLeod approved the credit line only after Smith signed a personal guarantee for any debt Colonial Mat might incur.
- In March 1989, Smith sent a letter to suppliers, including McLeod, stating that they would begin using the name 'Colonial Carpets' for floor product sales and that this would be a 'corporate division of Colonial Industrial Products Co., Inc.'
- Colonial Industrial then filed a certificate of assumed business name to operate as 'Colonial Carpets.'
- After receiving the letter, McLeod changed the name on Colonial Mat's billing account to 'Colonial Carpets, Inc.' but did not close the original account.
- In 1990, several invoices for goods delivered to 'Colonial Carpets' went unpaid, resulting in a debt of $6,182.65.
- Both Colonial Mat and Colonial Industrial operated from the same address, used the same phone number, had the same president and director, shared an office manager, and were engaged in virtually identical lines of business.
Procedural Posture:
- McLeod Distributing, Inc. filed a complaint in the trial court against Colonial Mat Company, Inc. and Michael B. Smith for an unpaid debt.
- Following a bench trial nearly ten years later, the trial court entered judgment in favor of McLeod for the debt, interest, and fees.
- The trial court, however, reduced the amount of prejudgment interest awarded to McLeod due to a long period of inactivity in the case.
- The trial court denied a motion to correct errors filed by Colonial Mat and Smith.
- Colonial Mat and Smith, as Appellants, appealed the judgment to the Indiana Court of Appeals, and McLeod, as Appellee, filed a cross-appeal challenging the reduction of prejudgment interest.
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 equity permit holding one corporation liable for the debts of a closely related corporation when the two entities share common officers, business purposes, locations, and branding, and operate as a single enterprise, thereby creating confusion for a creditor?
Opinions:
Majority - Barnes, Judge.
Yes. A court may disregard the corporate form and hold one corporation liable for the debts of an affiliated corporation to prevent injustice. Although McLeod did not present evidence on all of the traditional 'Aronson' factors for piercing the corporate veil (like undercapitalization or fraud), those factors are not exclusive, especially when dealing with affiliated 'brother-sister' corporations rather than shareholder liability. The court found ample evidence that Colonial Mat and Colonial Industrial d/b/a Colonial Carpets were operated as a single enterprise. This evidence included their similar names, common officers and employees, nearly identical business purposes, shared office and phone number, and evidence of commingled assets. Furthermore, the March 1989 letter from Smith was ambiguous and created confusion about the corporate structure rather than providing clear notice, leading McLeod to believe it was dealing with the same entity under a new name. Because Smith treated the companies as mere alter egos of each other in his public dealings, equity requires holding Colonial Mat liable to protect an innocent third party, McLeod, from unfairness. The court also held that Smith's personal guarantee was enforceable because, even if improperly executed, he ratified it by accepting the benefit of the credit line for his companies for over two years without attempting to rescind the guarantee.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the 'piercing the corporate veil' doctrine in Indiana to affiliated or 'brother-sister' corporations. It establishes that courts may look beyond the traditional factors used for imposing shareholder liability and consider a broader set of facts reflecting the operational reality of the companies. The decision signals that when two corporations are so intertwined in their management, branding, and operations that they appear to be a single enterprise to third parties, courts will not permit the technicality of separate incorporation to be used to evade debts. This precedent strengthens the position of creditors who are misled by confusing corporate structures and reinforces the principle that equity can override corporate formalities to prevent injustice.
