Osloond v. Osloond
| Decision Date | 05 April 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 20956.,20956. |
| Citation | 2000 SD 46,609 N.W.2d 118 |
| Parties | Suzanne Kay OSLOOND, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Raymond Earl OSLOOND, Jr., Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Linda Lea M. Viken of Viken, Viken, Pechota, Leach & Dewell, Rapid City, for plaintiff and appellee.
A.P. Fuller of Fuller, Tellinghuisen, Gordon & Percy, Lead, for defendant and appellant.
[¶ 1.] Raymond appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to release funds from levy. The trial court's decision upheld a notice of levy issued by the Lawrence County Sheriff's Department upon the corporate accounts of Stretch's, Inc., a corporation owned by Raymond. We reverse the circuit court's decision and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[¶ 2.] This matter arises from a judgment and decree of divorce entered on October 24, 1997 and the subsequent proceedings to enforce the judgment and decree. In the decree, Suzanne was awarded a property settlement of $143,315.50. This property award was payable 25 percent within 60 days of the decree and the remainder payable over 15 years at no less than $650.00 per month. Suzanne was also awarded $887.20 per month in child support and $1,200.00 per month for 48 months in alimony. Raymond appealed the decree, which was summarily affirmed.
[¶ 3.] Suzanne made numerous attempts to enforce the decree through the use of contempt proceedings. However, numerous hearings, awards of attorney fees and jail time failed to bring Raymond into compliance with the decree. Suzanne then sought to collect the amounts still due to her through execution and levy against Raymond's property. This included placing a levy on the accounts of a corporation known as Stretch's, Inc., (Stretch's) since Raymond is the sole shareholder, officer and agent of Stretch's. All of the corporate stock of Stretch's was awarded to Raymond as a part of the property division in the decree.
[¶ 4.] On December 23, 1998, Raymond made a motion to release the corporation's funds from the levy. A hearing was held January 27, 1999. The trial court denied the motion to release under SDCL 15-18-17 and the levy remained in place against the corporate funds. Both sides presented arguments during this hearing on the issue of piercing the corporate veil as an alternative to maintaining the levy under SDCL 15-18-17. While the trial court did state that piercing the corporate veil would be appropriate considering the facts of this case, he did not rest his decision upon that theory in deciding to uphold the levy. He instead stated that it was not necessary to go forward with piercing the corporate veil, because under SDCL 15-18-17, the levy could stand without such action.
[¶ 5.] Raymond filed a notice of appeal and raises the following issue for our consideration:
Whether the trial court erred in allowing corporate property to be taken by levy without the necessity of piercing the corporate veil?
[¶ 6.] Our standard of review is well settled:
We review a trial court's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. Jasper v. Smith, 540 N.W.2d 399, 401 (S.D.1995) (citing Cordell v. Codington County, 526 N.W.2d 115, 116 (S.D. 1994)). Under this standard, we will not disturb the court's findings unless we are firmly and definitely convinced, after a review of the entire evidence, a mistake has been made. Id. We review a trial court's conclusions of law under a de novo standard. Id. Under a de novo review, we give no deference to the trial court's conclusions of law. Id.
Sabhari v. Sapari, 1998 SD 35, ¶ 12, 576 N.W.2d 886, 891
(quoting Landstrom v. Shaver, 1997 SD 25, ¶ 37, 561 N.W.2d 1, 7).
[¶ 7.] The question of the appropriateness of the levy under SDCL 15-18-17 is clearly a question of law involving the interpretation of SDCL 15-18-17 and other statutes. Thus, this Court reviews this issue de novo.
[¶ 8.]Whether the trial court erred in allowing corporate property to be taken by levy without piercing the corporate veil?
521 N.W.2d at 111. This concept of limited liability is the central purpose for choosing a corporate form because "it permits corporate shareholders to limit their personal liability to the extent of their investment." Id. (citing Ross v. Playle, 505 N.W.2d 515, 517 (Iowa App.1993) (citations omitted)). The principle exception to limited liability is the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil which allows courts to disregard the distinction between a corporation and its shareholders to prevent fraud and injustice. Id. at 112.
[¶ 10.] A party who receives a favorable judgment can place levies on the property of the defendant by executing the judgment. See SDCL ch. 15-18. The property, which may be subjected to a levy upon execution of a judgment, is provided in SDCL 15-18-17, which states:
All property and interests therein and rights appurtenant thereto, tangible or intangible, including shares or interests in any corporations, credits, chooses in action, and whether capable of manual delivery or not, belonging to the party against whom the execution was issued, and not exempt by law may be taken on execution and sold or otherwise applied to the satisfaction of the judgment as provided by law.
[¶ 11.] Suzanne argues that SDCL 15-18-17, by providing a levy against corporate shares or interests, allows an exception to the doctrine of limited liability and the concept of a separate corporate entity. It is Suzanne's position that since Raymond is the sole shareholder, officer and agent of Stretch's, all of the assets and cash belonging to the corporation can be levied upon for execution of a personal judgment against Raymond. This same position was adopted by the trial court as the primary basis for denying the motion to release Stretch's assets from the levy. However, reliance on SDCL 15-18-17 is misplaced. There is nothing in the law of this state to suggest that SDCL 15-18-17 was intended as an exception to fundamental corporate principles.
[¶ 12.] Suzanne argues that by including both shares and interests in a corporation, the legislature intended SDCL 15-18-17 to go beyond the right to simply levy against stock held by the defendant. In fact, she argues that it allows her access to all corporate assets because Raymond is the sole shareholder, officer and agent. It is obvious that by including the word "interests" in the statute the legislature intended to encompass something other than shares or stock held in a corporation. However, it is not correct to find that the use of the word "interests" allows Suzanne complete access to all corporate assets held by Stretch's. Instead, the word "interests" gives Suzanne the right to anything that Raymond has a legal right to receive from the corporation. Under SDCL 15-18-17, Suzanne can levy against any stock owned by Raymond, the monthly salary he receives from the corporation or his right to a share of the profits at the end of each fiscal year. Nothing in SDCL 15-18-17 allows a levy upon corporate assets other than those in which Raymond has a legal interest, unless there is sufficient reason to pierce the corporate veil. A key reason for this is that each are separate entities and other creditors of the corporation may have rights to be interested herein.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Action Mechanical v. Deadwood Historic
...N.W.2d 487, 490-491. We review a trial court's conclusions of law de novo, giving no deference to the trial court's conclusions. Osloond v. Osloond, 2000 SD 46, ¶ 6, 609 N.W.2d 118, [¶ 13.] Foreclosure of a mechanic's lien is an action in equity. Franksen v. Crossroads Joint Venture, 245 Ne......
-
Burke v. Ability Ins. Co.
...should be pierced because that ultimate determination is a question of fact that must be determined by the jury. See Osloond v. Osloond, 609 N.W.2d 118, 122 (S.D.2000) (“Whether the corporate veil should be pierced is a question of fact [.]”). Burke has merely pleaded enough to keep all def......
-
Estate of Fisher v. Fisher
...a trial court's conclusions of law under the de novo standard, giving no deference to the trial court's conclusions of law. Osloond v. Osloond, 2000 SD 46, ¶ 6, 609 N.W.2d 118, ANALYSIS [¶ 11.] 1. Whether Dean's payoff of the contract terminated Donald's first-chance-to-buy. [¶ 12.] The dis......
-
Burke v. Ability Ins. Co.
...should be pierced because that ultimate determination is a question of fact that must be determined by the jury. See Osloond v. Osloond, 609 N.W.2d 118, 122 (S.D. 2000) ("Whether the corporate veil should be pierced is a question of fact[.]"). Burke has merely pleaded enough to keep all def......