What days are Sunbelt Rentals open? How is Sunbelt Rentals rated? Sunbelt Rentals has a 4. Sunbelt Rentals Reviews. Overall Rating Overall Rating. Vince Prosperi. Aug 21st, Tammy Maret. Jul 20th, Chad Caron. May 4th, Kathleen Taylor. Apr 21st, Mike Sims. Apr 18th, Submit a Review. Write a Review. Please Enter Your Name. People also Viewed. Bayard Business Capital and Consulting Inc. Swank Motion Pictures Inc.
Bouncin Off the Wall. DNT Shredding. Start Driving Online Leads Today! See Sunbelt Envtl. Rieder's Jiffy Mkt. The appeal was dismissed based on this Court's determination that the trial court's order was not a final judgment because the judgment did not dispose of the claim against Trustee; "[i]n short, the judgment does not mention Trustee.
Following the issuance of the opinion referenced above, on November 10, , the trial court entered a judgment in which it pierced the corporate veil of Jiffy Market and OMA, and declared that Jiffy Market, OMA, and Trustee were "deemed to be one and the same. Rieder, Trustee are subject to execution to satisfy the judgment entered herein.
As this was a judge-tried case, we will affirm the trial court's judgment unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law.
Feinberg v. Feinberg, S. Due deference is given to the trial court's ability to judge the credibility of the witnesses and evidence before it. Further, we will view the evidence and any reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and disregard all contradictory evidence.
We find it most logical to address Point III first. Following that analysis, we will discuss Points I and II together. Within this point it is argued that the trial court erred in assessing liability against Trustee because the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter judgment against him.
The point further alleges that Trustee was without notice of the claims against him because, although he was named in the case caption as a party, Sunbelt's motion for creditor's bill made no allegations nor any prayer of relief against Trustee, as the pleadings and allegations filed before the trial court sought judgment only against Charles Rieder personally. Trustee argues that the judgment here exceeded Sunbelt's prayer for relief in its motion for creditor's bill, as the pleadings did not ask for relief against Trustee.
Trustee cites to specific cases for his assertion, including one that notes the well-established precedent that the judgment may not exceed the prayer. First Missouri Bank of St. Francois Co. Patterson, S. However, as indicated in that case, that precedent holds when the judgment is a judgment by default, which we did not have in the case at bar. It is generally true that, although the powers of a court of equity are broad, those powers "are limited to the claim for relief and issues made by the pleadings.
Ruestman, S. It is also true, however, that issues not raised by the pleadings may be tried by express or implied consent of the parties and, under those circumstances, such issues shall be treated as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Wallace v. Grasso, S. Further, if evidence is introduced on an issue without objection, the pleadings may be amended by implied consent.
State ex. Brewster, S. During its opening statement, Sunbelt's counsel indicated that he intended to show that the conveyance of the assets from Jiffy Market to OMA was a fraudulent conveyance. Sunbelt's counsel also stated that Sunbelt was asking the trial court to find that Jiffy Market and OMA were the alter egos of each other and to pierce the corporate veil to allow Sunbelt "to collect [its] judgment against not only [OMA], but also Mr.
Rieder individually All parties agree the trust owns the property on which the convenience store when run as either Jiffy Market or OMA stands. In addition, the trust owns the fixtures and "hard assets" associated with operating the business; Jiffy Market and OMA were formed as the operating corporations for the business and therefore, did not "own much of anything.
Trustee admitted that he is grantor, as well as trustee, of the trust. Trustee was called as a witness by Sunbelt. During cross-examination by Trustee's attorney, the following exchange occurred:. Because a trust is not a legal entity, and the trustee is the legal owner of the trust property, if a suit is brought that involves the trust property, it is the general rule that all trustees and beneficiaries are considered necessary parties.
Rosenfeld v. Thoele, 28 S. Given that general rule, and the evidence before the trial court, including the questioning of Trustee by Trustee's own counsel at the hearing, Trustee's argument that he had no notice of any claim fails. A court of equity, although restrained from deciding an unpleaded fact issue, may grant any relief that is warranted by the pleaded issues regardless of whether or not a particular issue was included in the prayer for relief.
The contemporary view of pleading is that the prayer is not part of the petition. Therefore, a trial court may grant relief absent an express prayer when such relief is fully supported by the facts that were either pled or tried by consent. Based on the analysis presented in the cited cases, and given the evidence presented as indicated above, there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to include a determination regarding Trustee in its judgment.
Point III is denied. Since the evidence presented and the necessary analyses are so intertwined as they relate to Points I and II, we will address the two points together.
Trustee contends there was insufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil and assess to Trustee the liability of Jiffy Market. Missouri Highway and Transp. Comm'n v. Overall, 53 S. Section In its judgment, the trial court found six of those factors applicable in the case.
The trial court further found that the piercing of the corporate veil was supported by other abuses, including the co-mingling of corporate and personal assets by Trustee. Zykan, 52 S. The burden of proof is on the creditor, who must prove the case by clear and convincing evidence.
Fraudulent intent is difficult to establish using direct proof; thus, it is often demonstrated by the surrounding facts and circumstances of the transaction. The circumstances under which Missouri courts will pierce the corporate veil and hold the corporation's owner liable for the corporation's debt are narrow.
Patrick V. Koepke Constr. Paletta, S. A court may pierce the corporate veil or disregard the separate corporate entity if the separateness is used as a device to defraud a creditor. Sansone v. Moseley, S.
0コメント