LEU MACHINERY CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
WENKO TRAILER AND BODY CO., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Leu Machinery sold specialized machinery to Wenko Trailer & Body Co. on credit and sued to recover unpaid amounts and for fraud, later adding claims against the individual owner and related corporations for piercing the corporate veil. The trial court entered judgment against Trailer only, absolving the individual defendants, and the appellate court affirmed.
The court held that the judgment in favor of the individual defendants was proper and supported by substantial competent evidence, as there was no evidence that Wenck or the related corporations agreed to guarantee the indebtedness or become obligated to pay the machinery costs.
[1] A plaintiff seeking to pierce the corporate veil must present evidence demonstrating that the corporation was a sham and employed for illegal or unlawful purposes.
[2] A court may find that corporate entities are not liable for the debts of another corporation when there is no evidence of an agreement to guarantee the indebtedness or ot…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“There was no evidence of any agreement by Wenck or said corporations guaranteeing the indebtedness or to become obligated to pay the same.”
Establishes the evidentiary basis for absolving the individual defendants and related corporations of liability.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeu Machinery sold specialized machinery to Wenko Trailer & Body Co., Inc. The corporate stock of Trailer was owned by Wenko Realty Corporation, and t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Corporate Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff below appeals from a judgment rendered in part in its favor and in part adverse. Plaintiff sold certain specialized machinery to the defendant Wenko Trailer & Body Co., Inc., herein referred to as Trailer. The corporate stock of Trailer was owned by the defendant Wenko Realty Corporation. The stock of the latter and of the defendant Wenko Equipment Co., a Florida Corporation, was owned by the defendant James H. Wenck.
Plaintiff filed an action against Trailer, seeking recovery of the unpaid portion of the cost of the machinery, and for damages for alleged fraud on the ground that Trailer acquired the machinery with intent not to pay therefor. Later, with leave of court, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, in which it joined Wenck, Wenko Realty Corporation and Wenko Equipment Co., and in added counts alleged that the negotiations which resulted in sale of the machinery to Trailer were made by Wenck, acting for himself or for the other named corporations, and that Wenck and said other corporations thereby incurred liability to plaintiff for the cost of such machinery; that Wenck and said other corporations had represented to plaintiff that they would be the purchasers; that such representation was false; that Trailer was a sham corporation, and was employed by the other defendants for “illegal and unlawful purposes”, whereupon plaintiff sought judgment piercing the corporate veil of Trailer, and judgment against all defendants.
Following a non-jury trial, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff against Trailer for $19,302.14, with costs and attorney fees (to be determined later), and in favor of Wenck, Wenko Realty Corporation and Wenko Equipment Co., absolving them of liability. The appellant contends the latter portion of the judgment was error. In consideration thereof and in the light of the record, briefs and argument we hold no reversible error has been shown.
Inherent in the judgment were findings of the court, as the trier of the facts, adverse to the plaintiff that Wenck and the realty or equipment corporations had not so acted as to become liable for the obligation of Trailer for the cost of the purchased machinery. There was no evidence of any agreement by Wenck or said corporations guaranteeing the indebtedness or to become obligated to pay the same. The judgment of the court so ruling and holding that Wenck and the realty corporation and the equipment company were not liable for the cost of the machinery was supported by substantial competent evidence.
The judgment is affirmed.