Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02283/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02283-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2283

___________

Carpenters District Council *

of Kansas City Pension Fund; *

Terry L. Davis, Trustee of the *

Carpenters District Council of *

Kansas City Pension Fund and the *

Kansas City and Vicinity Welfare *

Fund; Jeffrey Chaikin, Trustee of *

the Carpenters District Council of *

Kansas City Pension Fund and the *

Kansas City and Vicinity Welfare *

Fund; Carpenters District Council *

of Kansas City and Vicinity Welfare *

Fund, A Trust Fund; Carpenters *

District Council of Kansas City and *

Vicinity Apprenticeship and Training * Appeal from the United States

Fund, A Trust Fund; Joseph E. Pink, * District Court for the Western

Trustee of the Carpenters District * District of Missouri.

Council of Kansas City and Vicinity *

Apprenticeship and Training Fund, *

*

Appellees, *

*

v. *

*

JNL Construction Co., Inc,; Larry *

K. McAllister; Nancy E. McAllister; *

TVM Rentals, LLC, *

*

Appellants. *

*

Appellate Case: 08-2283 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/25/2010 Entry ID: 3638243
1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska, sitting by designation. 

-2-

___________

Submitted: January 12, 2010

Filed: February 25, 2010

___________

Before MURPHY and BYE, Circuit Judges, and STROM,1

 District Judge.

___________

BYE, Circuit Judge.

JNL Construction Company, Inc. (JNL), Larry McAllister (Larry), Nancy

McAllister (Nancy), and TVM Rentals, Inc. (TVM) appeal the district court’s adverse

grant of summary judgment in an action brought under section 502, see 29 U.S.C.

§ 1132 (civil enforcement), and section 515, see 29 U.S.C. § 1145 (delinquent

contributions), of the Employment Retirement Security Income Act (ERISA). Upon

de novo review, see Trs. of the Graphic Commc’ns Int’l Union Upper Midwest Local

1M Health & Welfare Plan v. Bjorkedal, 516 F.3d 719, 725 (8th Cir. 2008), we

reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I

Trustees for the Carpenters District Council of Kansas City Pension Fund,

Carpenters District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity Welfare Fund, and Carpenters

District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity Apprenticeship and Training Fund

(collectively the Funds) brought an ERISA action on behalf of the Funds against JNL,

the McAllisters, and TVM. The Funds alleged defendants failed to contribute union

employees’ fringe benefits to the Funds from November 2003 through January 2005,

as required by collective bargaining agreements covering carpenters who performed

Appellate Case: 08-2283 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/25/2010 Entry ID: 3638243
2

During oral argument appellees indicated there were some contributions made

during this period, although this issue appeared undisputed in the district court. 

3

We summarize our findings as to what the record showed, because some of the

evidence upon which the Funds relied was not helpful, e.g., the checking-account

statements did not reflect the source of the deposits or to whom checks were written,

and some deposition excerpts were taken out of context. 

-3-

work for JNL.2

 The Funds sought to pierce the corporate veil of JNL to reach the

McAllisters and TVM. The relevant summary judgment record--which included

Larry’s and Nancy’s deposition testimony and declarations, as well as bank and

mortgage records--reveals the following.3

JNL was in the business of finish-carpentry and employed only carpenters. The

collective bargaining agreements were entered into in 1995 before JNL was

incorporated in 1998 (the year the McAllisters divorced); at various times Larry and

Nancy each owned from 49-51% of JNL. JNL had an office manager, and Nancy’s

son served as JNL’s secretary/treasurer and chief executive officer at times, so Nancy

was not always aware of JNL’s income and expenses. Larry primarily worked as a

carpenter, superintendent, or job bidder, leaving JNL’s financial matters to others.

JNL began having cash flow problems in 2003, and Larry drew no salary from late

2003 to late 2004. Around October 2004, Nancy became JNL’s sole owner and

president. According to Nancy, the JNL stock had little or no value at the time, so she

paid Larry nothing; she explained the transfer occurred because Larry could not get

his pension as a union carpenter if he retained any interest in JNL. Nancy also

testified JNL ceased operations in August 2005. Its checking-account statements from

July 2004 to January 2005 reflect multiple deposits and checks; the lowest monthly

balance was $20,408 and the highest was $128,392.

JNL operated out of various locations. Larry personally paid either the rent or

the mortgage payments for these locations, in part because the locations usually also

served as his residence, and in part because his tax advisor so recommended; he was

Appellate Case: 08-2283 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/25/2010 Entry ID: 3638243
4

At oral argument appellants suggested there were two $100,000 payments to

the Internal Revenue Service on JNL’s behalf, but the summary judgment record

reflected only one. 

-4-

only sporadically reimbursed by JNL. JNL was last located in a residence in Pleasant

Hill, Missouri. JNL took out a construction loan of around $250,000 to build the

residence, but Larry put $60,000 of his own money into the project; Larry understood

whoever resided in the residence upon its completion (which at first was Nancy’s son)

would pay off the construction loan. In July 2004, Larry took out a personal mortgage

of $462,000 on the residence and netted $217,740 after paying off the existing

mortgage. He deposited the proceeds into his personal account. He declared he used

the money for JNL’s business expenses, offering copies of personal checks totaling

$95,000 which he wrote to JNL in July, August, and September 2004, and a copy of

a $100,000 check he wrote to the Internal Revenue Service in August 2004 to satisfy

JNL’s tax liability.4

 A few days after Larry obtained the July 2004 loan, he bought

the Pleasant Hill residence from JNL. The warranty deed recited the consideration

was $10 and “other valuable consideration”; according to Larry, in addition to the

payment of $10, he had agreed to satisfy the debt on the residence. From November

2004 to July 2005, Larry and Nancy lived at the residence, where JNL also conducted

business beginning in either July or November 2004. Meanwhile, in December 2004

Larry took out another personal mortgage on the Pleasant Hill residence for $588,000,

and this time netted about $86,000 after satisfying the existing mortgage. He placed

these proceeds in JNL’s account a few days later. In June 2005 Larry sold the

residence for $800,000, and realized a profit of about $184,000. However, court

records show all but around $49,000 was owed to a lender.

In August 2004, JNL transferred its tools to TVM for $100,000, but money was

never exchanged. TVM rented the tools back to JNL, but because of cash-flow

problems, no rental payments were made. The tools were sold in July 2005 for a

profit of only around $19,700. Checking-account statements for TVM from 2004 and

Appellate Case: 08-2283 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/25/2010 Entry ID: 3638243
5

The record is unclear as to when TVM was formed, and there was no evidence

as to why it was formed or who owned or controlled it, as to the tools’ value when

they were essentially given to JNL in 2004, or as to who financially benefitted from

the July 2005 sale of the tools. 

-5-

2005 reflect at most a balance of around $2,000; as of November 2004, these

statements were sent to the Pleasant Hill residence. JNL was TVM’s sole customer.5

In granting summary judgment to the Funds, the district court interpreted the

complaint as raising claims only under ERISA, and applied this court’s holding in

Greater Kansas City Laborers Pension Fund v. Superior Gen. Contractors, Inc., 104

F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 1997): to pierce a corporate veil, a court must consider (1)

whether a corporation was controlled by another to the extent it had independence in

form only, and (2) whether the corporation was used as a subterfuge to defeat public

convenience, justify wrong, or perpetrate a fraud. Id. at 1055. The district court

pointed to the following transactions cited by the Funds in concluding the first prong

of the Greater Kansas City Laborers test had been met: the McAllisters shared space

with JNL, and paid for the space; Nancy acquired the JNL stock for no value; JNL

obtained a $250,000 construction loan to build the Pleasant Hill residence, and then

Larry took out personal mortgages on it and received the net loan proceeds; Larry

bought the Pleasant Hill residence, and his affidavit was insufficient to contradict the

warranty deed’s recitation indicating he paid only $10; Larry paid JNL’s $100,000 tax

debt; and JNL sold tools to TVM for $100,000, without receiving payment, and then

failed to pay for renting the tools from TVM. The court also concluded defendants

engaged in conduct to perpetrate a fraud to avoid paying JNL’s creditors, noting Larry

had repeatedly deposited money into JNL’s account, but payments to the Funds were

never made.

On appeal, the McAllisters, JNL, and TVM essentially reiterate their arguments

from below, contending the Funds failed to establish a causal connection between the

transactions upon which they relied and JNL’s insolvency or undercapitalization.

Appellate Case: 08-2283 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/25/2010 Entry ID: 3638243
6

As they did below, appellants argue the district court should have applied the

three-part test Missouri courts use for determining whether corporate owners should

be held personally liable for corporate debts: (1) control, not mere majority or stock

control, but complete domination, not only of finances, but of policy and business

practice concerning the transaction, such that the corporate entity had no separate

existence; (2) breach of duty--where such control was used to commit wrong or fraud,

to perpetrate the violation of a statutory or other legal duty, or to commit an unjust or

dishonest act in contravention of the plaintiff’s rights; and (3) the control and breach

of duty proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury. See Mobius Mgmt. Sys., Inc., v. W.

Physician Search, LLC, 175 S.W. 3d 186, 188-89 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005); see also Collet

v. Am. Nat’l Stores, Inc., 708 S.W. 2d 273, 283-87 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986) (applying

tripartite test to determine whether one corporation was liable for debts of another

corporation). The district court acknowledged the Missouri tripartite test and found

-6-

II

In Greater Kansas City Laborers, plaintiffs (Missouri employee trust funds)

sued solely under ERISA sections 502 and 515 to recover unpaid contributions from

a corporate entity, and this court relied on the two-part test cited above in conducting

its alter-ego analysis. See id. at 1052-55 (corporate-law standard for determining

alter-ego status strikes appropriate balance between congressional intent of ERISA

and long-established principle that corporation’s existence is presumed to be separate

and may be disregarded only in narrowly prescribed circumstances). In another

section 515 case, this court cited the Tenth Circuit’s federal common-law standard for

piercing the corporate veil between a corporation and an individual, noting this court

had previously concluded corporate officers could not be held personally liable under

ERISA without a basis for piercing the corporate veil. See Minn. Laborers Health &

Welfare Fund v. Scanlan, 360 F.3d 925, 927-29 (8th Cir. 2004) (citing Tenth Circuit’s

two-prong test: (1) whether there was unity of interest and lack of respect given to

separate identity of corporation by its shareholders, so personalities and assets of

corporation and individuals are indistinct, and (2) whether adherence to such corporate

fiction sanctions fraud, promotes injustice, or leads to evasion of legal obligations).6

Appellate Case: 08-2283 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/25/2010 Entry ID: 3638243
it similar, and in any event, our conclusions as to the grant of summary judgment do

not change if the Missouri tripartite test is applied. 

-7-

III

As to the McAllisters, we conclude the evidence of commingling of funds

established as a matter of law the first part of either test. Specifically, a jury could

only conclude JNL was so controlled by the McAllisters it had independence in form

only, or there was a unity of interest and lack of respect given to the separate identities

of JNL and the McAllisters so the personalities and assets of JNL and the McAllisters

were indistinct. However, we find the Funds did not produce sufficient evidence to

show the absence of trialworthy issues on the second prong: whether JNL was used

as a subterfuge to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, or perpetrate a fraud; or

whether adherence to the corporate fiction sanctioned fraud, promoted injustice, or

resulted in an evasion of legal obligations. The district court, as well as the Funds,

gave little explanation as to why the same transactions the Funds cited as establishing

the first prong of the test in Greater Kansas City Laborers also met the second prong.

We fail to see how the Funds’ evidence definitively established JNL was used by the

McAllisters to avoid paying the contributions at issue, and the Funds identified no

other way in which JNL was used to justify wrong, commit fraud, or promote

injustice. To the contrary, it appears JNL, and thus its creditors, benefitted from

Larry’s payments toward the premises where JNL conducted business, his payment

of JNL’s taxes, his deposits of refinancing proceeds into JNL’s account, and his

decision not to draw a salary for a year. Cf. Trs. of the Graphic Commc’ns Int’l

Union, 516 F.3d at 729 (finding nothing fraudulent about corporate officers leasing

buildings they personally owned to their wholly owned corporation).

Appellate Case: 08-2283 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/25/2010 Entry ID: 3638243
-8-

IV

Similarly, as to TVM’s liability, we conclude the first prong of the test in

Greater Kansas City Laborers--whether JNL so controlled TVM, the two entities were

independent in form only--was met because JNL was TVM’s sole customer, TVM

never paid the $100,000 for the purported purchase of JNL’s tools, and JNL did not

thereafter pay TVM for tool rentals. See Greater Kansas City Laborers, 104 F.3d at

1055 (equity will set aside transaction when it does not carry earmarks of arm’s length

bargain). However, as with the McAllisters, given the paucity of evidence in the

record concerning TVM, and the lack of explanation on the second prong of the test--

whether TVM was used as a subterfuge to defeat public convenience, justify wrong,

or perpetrate a fraud--we also find trialworthy issues on this prong as to TVM.

V

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the district court and

remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-2283 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/25/2010 Entry ID: 3638243