Soerries v. Dancause
Volume not available, Page 375 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The corporate veil may be pierced to hold a shareholder personally liable for corporate torts when there is sufficient evidence that the shareholder abused the corporate form by commingling personal and corporate assets and disregarding the legal separateness between them.
Facts:
- William A. Soerries was the sole shareholder of Chickasaw Club, Inc., which operated a nightclub.
- On July 31, 1996, 18-year-old Aubrey Lynn Pursley, who was already intoxicated, entered the club.
- Club employees did not check Pursley's identification, in violation of a local ordinance prohibiting entry to individuals under 21.
- Pursley consumed additional alcohol at the club and was visibly intoxicated when she left.
- Soerries regularly paid employees, suppliers, and entertainers in cash directly from the club's proceeds rather than from corporate bank accounts, with some payments being made "under the table" and not officially recorded.
- Soerries owned the property where the club was located and used cash from the club's daily proceeds to pay his personal mortgage on that property.
- Corporate and personal tax returns showed significant discrepancies regarding income, expenses, and rental payments between Soerries and the corporation.
- Shortly after leaving the club, Pursley was killed when she lost control of her car and struck a tree.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph Dancause, Pursley's stepfather, sued Chickasaw Club, Inc. and William A. Soerries individually in a Georgia trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury in a trifurcated proceeding (liability, punitive damages imposition, punitive damages amount).
- The jury found the corporation and Soerries jointly liable for $6,500 in compensatory damages.
- The jury pierced the corporate veil and found Soerries solely liable for $187,500 in punitive damages.
- The trial court entered a final judgment based on the jury's verdict.
- William A. Soerries, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
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 sufficient evidence of commingling corporate and personal funds, disregarding corporate formalities, and using corporate assets for personal expenses justify piercing the corporate veil to hold a sole shareholder personally liable for a tort committed by the corporation?
Opinions:
Majority - Ellington, Judge
Yes. When a shareholder abuses the corporate form by treating corporate and personal affairs as interchangeable, the corporate veil may be pierced to hold the shareholder personally liable. The court found substantial evidence that Soerries disregarded the corporate entity. This included paying employees in unreported cash, using club proceeds to pay his personal mortgage, and having major inconsistencies between corporate tax records and personal income. By commingling assets and confusing the separate properties and records of himself and the corporation, Soerries treated the corporation as his alter ego, not as a separate legal entity. Therefore, he could not use the corporate form as a shield from liability for the corporation's torts.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the alter ego theory for piercing the corporate veil in Georgia, emphasizing that the key inquiry is whether the shareholder abused the corporate form. It demonstrates that a consistent pattern of commingling assets and disregarding corporate formalities can be sufficient evidence for a jury to impose personal liability, even without a showing of overt fraud. The case serves as a crucial precedent for small business owners and sole proprietors, highlighting the critical importance of maintaining strict financial and operational separation between their personal affairs and their corporate entities to preserve limited liability protection.
Unlock the full brief for Soerries v. Dancause