Court affirms summary disposition of fraud claimant seeking to "pierce the corporate veil"
In Vera v. Skogen,the Plaintiff attempted to enforce two judgments, totaling more than $150,000.00 against the alter ego medical staffing providers. The Plaintiff pointed out that Kristian Skogen basically shut down the entities that owed the Plaintiff money and transferred the assets to different corporations, thereby preventing her from collecting on her judgments. The trial judge summarily dismissed the claims, holding that she had not adequately demonstrated that the debts of the original companies should be paid by Skogen's successor corporation.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court. It held that while Vera had demonstrated transactions that "arguably could be viewed as 'fraudulent'," Vera had not adequately demonstrated that their corporate identities should be ignored. The Court held that the various companies were not the "alter ego" of Skogen--despite the documentation of potential fraud--and therefore Vera had no meaningful redress pursuant to the Uniform Fraudulent Transactions Act.