Pazur v. Belcher

The 7-year limitation period for enforcement of judgments did not govern the plaintiff's suit against a shareholder to pierce the corporate veil where the plaintiff did not secure a final judgment against the corporation in question before he filed suit against the shareholder.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

On May 16, 1996, Theodore Pazur filed a suit for breach of contract and conversion against Med-Quip, Inc., contending that Med-Quip failed to pay commissions he earned while he was employed by Med-Quip as a salesman. Med-Quip timely answered the complaint. On June 11, 2002, a little over six years after the complaint was filed and after Med-Quip had been sold to another corporation, Pazur filed a motion for leave to add Med-Quip’s primary shareholder, Vicki Belcher, as a party. The motion to add Belcher as a party was granted on November 15, 2002. On July 16, 2002, the trial court entered an order requiring Med-Quip to retain legal counsel. Med-Quip failed to comply with this order, and on September 6, 2002, Pazur moved to strike Med-Quip’s answer and have Med-Quip declared in default. On November 18, 2002, the trial court entered a default judgment as to liability against Med-Quip, but damages were not adjudicated at that time. Approximately one month later, on December 16, 2002, Pazur filed a complaint against Belcher, which he amended on January 13, 2003, asserting claims against Belcher based on piercing the corporate veil and for attorney fees. Belcher subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that the statutes of limitation had expired on Pazur’s claims.

On June 23, 2003, following a hearing on damages, the trial court entered judgment against Med-Quip and awarded Pazur $5,897.64 on his conversion claim, $7,262.76 on his breach of contract claim, an additional $50,000 for consequential damages, and $10,270 for attorney fees. On September, 22, 2003 the trial court granted Belcher’s motion to dismiss, finding that Pazur’s claims against her were barred by the statutes of limitation. Pazur appeals.

Pazur v. Belcher

The 7-year limitation period for enforcement of judgments did not govern the plaintiff's suit against a shareholder to pierce the corporate veil where the plaintiff did not secure a final judgment against the corporation in question before he filed suit against the shareholder.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report