NEIL S. SCHWARTZ, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
SPECTRATECH INK COMPANY, ETC., APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Corporate Form cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is the appeal from a final judgment in favor of appellee for goods sold. We reverse. There is no substantial competent evidence in the record to support liability on the part of the individual defendants to pay the debt of the corporation to whom the goods were supplied. Even if all the testimony of appellants were discounted and all the testimony of appellee (i.e., that they “felt like” their company was dealing with the individuals) were believed, the record is unrefuted that appellee was on notice from the inception of the business relationship that appellants’ business was organized and doing business as a corporation. Appellee’s invoices were routinely paid with corporate checks. The discrepancy in the corporate name on the corporate checks (“ing” was omitted from “Total Screen Printing Supply, Inc.”) is not a sufficient basis to ignore the corporate form. Evidence submitted that the shareholders of this closely held corporation did not hold formal annual meetings is not an adequate basis to pierce the corporate veil. See Eagle v. Benefield-Chappell, Inc., 476 So. 2d 716, 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
REVERSED with instructions to enter judgment in favor of defendants,
HARRIS, PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rupp v. Schon, 608 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…3 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Schon’s testimony that he thought he was dealing with Rupp individually is belied by the contract he signed and in any event is insufficient to impose personal liability on Rupp. See Schwartz v. Spectratech Ink Co., 568 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Based on the foregoing, we reverse and remand for entry of a judgment in favor of appellant. STONE, J., concurs. LETTS, J., dissents without opinion.…
-
Presley v. Ponce Plaza Assocs., 723 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…being referred to. The omission of the phrase “The Law Offices of’ was immaterial. As stated in a comparable case, “[t]he discrepancy in the corporate name ... is not a sufficient basis to ignore the corporate form.” Schwartz v. Spectratech Ink Co., 568 So. 2d 544, 545 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). There is no claim by the landlord that Presley was signing on behalf of some other professional association. The fact that there was a discrepancy in the corporate name does not mean that Presley undertook to act on behalf…
Authorities Cited
- Manny Eagle and Helen Eagle v. Benefield-Chappell, Inc., 476 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)