Kates v. Scher

A-2428-96T2 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1997) (Unpublished)
  • Opinion Date: October 10, 1997

CORPORATIONS; VEIL PIERCING— Just because a corporation’s sole shareholder gives “commands” to the horse owned by the corporation doesn’t mean that the corporation’s veil should be pierced to require the shareholder to pay a veterinarian’s bill.

A doctor sought recovery of veterinarian fees by bringing suit against both the corporation that had employed him and the sole shareholder of that corporation. The trial judge found against both the corporation and its shareholder, finding that the sole shareholder received a personal benefit from the corporation’s ownership of the horses that the doctor had treated. The Appellate Division found that while the shareholder individually gave commands to the horses and twice paid in cash for treatment services, there was no proof of fraud or injustice sufficient to impose liability on the shareholder. Additionally, since the corporation has assets to satisfy the judgment, piercing the corporate veil was not necessary.