M & M Wholesale Florist, Inc. v. Emmons
Decision Date | 26 June 1992 |
Citation | 600 So.2d 998 |
Parties | M & M WHOLESALE FLORIST, INC. v. Mary Maude EMMONS and Floyd Earl Emmons, Jr. 1910264. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Alex W. Zoghby and Mylan R. Engel of Engel, Walsh & Zoghby, Mobile, for appellant.
Daniel G. Blackburn and George R. Irvine III of Stone, Granade, Crosby & Blackburn, P.C., Bay Minette, for appellees.
This appeal arises from an action brought by M & M Wholesale Florist, Inc. ("M & M"), to recover on the account of Bay Minette Flower Shop, Inc.; M & M sought to recover from Mary Maude Emmons and her son Floyd Earl Emmons, Jr., individually. In the early 1950s, Mrs. Emmons opened an account at M & M in order to purchase flowers and florist supplies for her flower shop in Bay Minette. In 1973, the flower shop was incorporated. Mrs. Emmons managed the day-to-day operations of the business until sometime in the 1980s, when her son took over those operations. It is undisputed that the debt on the account at M & M was incurred after the flower shop was incorporated and while Mr. Emmons was running the store.
In order to recover against an individual for the debts of a corporation, the plaintiff must show (1) that the individual agreed to be liable for the debts; or (2) that the facts surrounding the transaction support a disregard for the corporate form. The evidence is undisputed that there was no agreement between the parties that Mrs. Emmons or her son would be personally liable for the debts of the flower shop to M & M. Therefore, M & M is not entitled to recover the amount owing on the flower shop's account from those individuals on that basis.
There is no evidence that would support this Court's disregarding the corporate form and "piercing the corporate veil." This Court has said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Coala, Inc.
...and Supply Co. v. Wiley, 631 So.2d 968, 969 (Ala.1994); Backus v. Watson, 619 So.2d 1342, 1345 (Ala. 1993); M & M Wholesale Florist, Inc. v. Emmons, 600 So.2d 998, 999 (Ala.1992); First Health, Inc. v. Blanton, 585 So.2d 1331, 1334 (Ala.1991); Huntsville Aviation Corp. v. Ford, 577 So.2d 12......
-
Moss v. W & a Cleaners, Civ.A. 99-D-332-N.
...disregarded the corporate form of W & A. See Conley v. Bostic, 1993 WL 741854 *13 (N.D.Ga.1993); see also M & M Wholesale Florist, Inc. v. Emmons, 600 So.2d 998, 999-1000 (Ala.1992) (setting forth the factors a court should consider in deciding whether to pierce the corporate veil). Thus, t......
-
J. Stephen Smith, Chapter 7 Tr. for the Bankr. Edelta Invs. & Dev., LLC v. Gary Wilburn, Rick Taylor, Jane Sears, & DJJ&J Enters., LLC (In re Delta Invs. & Dev., LLC)
...fraudulent purpose in conception or operation of business; or (3) operation as an instrumentality or alter ego. M&M Wholesale Florist, Inc. v. Emmons, 600 So. 2d 998 (Ala. 1992). In Backus v. Watson, 619 So. 2d 1342, 1345 (Ala. 1993), the Alabama Supreme Court explained that veil-piercing i......
-
Tlig Maint. Servs., Inc. v. Fialkowski
...585 So.2d [1331] at 1334 [ (Ala.1991) ] (citing Messick v. Moring, 514 So.2d 892, 894 (Ala.1987) ). See also M & M Wholesale Florist, Inc. v. Emmons, 600 So.2d 998 (Ala.1992)."Gilbert v. James Russell Motors, Inc., 812 So.2d 1269, 1273 (Ala.Civ.App.2001) (emphasis added). In Alabama, "the c......