![]() ![]() Plaintiff also urges that Den-Park was under-capitalized when it began and was organized as a mere shell for the incurring of debts. *737 Montgomery urges that at all times in question it had dealt with Fink individually that at no time did it have notice that Den-Park was a corporation and that even if Den-Park were a corporation, it was acting as an agent of Fink in operating under the lease since the lease ran to the Fink brothers and their wives rather than to Den-Park. Ultimately and resultantly no further payments were made to Montgomery. Den-Park, through Fink, complained on a number of occasions that the billings were greatly in excess of the amount agreed upon in the contract. ![]() Periodic invoices were sent by Montgomery to Den-Park, some of which were paid by the latter's checks. It was soon discovered that much more extensive repairs were needed than had originally been anticipated. Montgomery thereafter commenced work on the elevators. changed its name to Montgomery Elevator Company of Colorado, which was the plaintiff in the trial court. Shortly after this contract was executed, William Colin Kirk & Associates, Co. Fink" it was then signed by Quinn as agent for William Colin Kirk & Associates, Co. The service contract was sent to Den-Park Company and was accepted in the name of "Den-Park Co. After signing the lease, negotiations for both a service contract and a repair contract were entered into between Montgomery represented by Quinn and Den-Park represented by Fink. Quinn on behalf of William Colin Kirk & Associates, Co., offering to negotiate for servicing of the garage elevators should Fink be awarded the lease. Prior to obtaining the lease and prior to the formation of Den-Park, Fink received a letter from W. The Kleins and Finks each had one-half of the capital involved in Den-Park. In addition to the two Finks, there were four Klein brothers who invested and became stockholders in Den-Park Company. Victor and William Fink and three others then formed a corporation named Den-Park Company and the lease was assigned to that corporation. The evidence showed that the four individual defendants obtained a lease of certain parking facilities from the City and County of Denver. Den-Park Company then intervened as a party defendant and counterclaimed for $6,000, which the trial court in effect allowed as a set-off in the final judgment against defendant. Montgomery was able to obtain personal service only on William and Victor Fink. The record discloses that Montgomery filed suit against Victor Fink, William Fink, Ida Fink and Eva Fink individually and each of them as partners under the name of V & W Parking Stations. (b) That the plaintiff failed to establish grounds for application of the alter ego doctrine used by the trial court to hold him as a stockholder personally liable for a debt of the corporation. (a) The evidence shows that he was acting as an agent of the corporation in executing the agreements and On writ of error Fink alleges several grounds for reversal only one of which we need to consider, i.e., that it was error to find him personally liable on a contract entered into by Den-Park Company, a Minnesota corporation. The trial court rendered judgment in the amount of $4,000 against Fink individually, dismissing claims against the other defendants. Defendant in error will be referred to as plaintiff or Montgomery. He will be referred to herein as defendant or Fink. Plaintiff in error, Victor Fink, one of several defendants in the trial court, was sued personally and as a purported partner by Montgomery Elevator Company of Colorado for services rendered by it under contracts for service and repairs of elevators in Denver parking facilities. Castillo, Denver, for plaintiff in error.īelknap & McGarry, Denver, for defendant in error. Supreme Court of Colorado, In Department. MONTGOMERY ELEVATOR COMPANY OF COLORADO, Defendant in Error. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |