Case Name: U-CAN-II, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Richard SETZER, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2003-11-26
Citations: 870 So. 2d 99
Docket Number: No. 1D03-2150
Parties: U-CAN-II, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Richard SETZER, et al., Appellees.
Judges: BOOTH and KAHN, JJ., concur; ERVIN, J., concurs with written opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 870
Pages: 99–102

Head Matter:
U-CAN-II, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Richard SETZER, et al., Appellees.
No. 1D03-2150.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Nov. 26, 2003.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 14, 2004.
R. Dan Boulware and R. Todd Ehlert of Shugart, Thomson, Kilroy, Watkins, Boul-ware, P.A., St. Joseph, Missouri; and Joel Settembrini, Jr., of Smith, Hulsey & Bu-sey, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
Gaspare J. Bono of McKenna, Long & Aldridge, LLP, Washington, D.C.; John L. Watkins of McKenna, Long & Aldridge, LLP, Atlanta; and Betsy C. Cox of Rogers Towers, Jacksonville, for Appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal of a non-final order compelling arbitration. On review of the record, we hold that the trial court erred in holding that Appellant was the alter ego of certain non-parties and that, on that basis, Appellant's corporate veil could be pierced.
The Florida Supreme Court has held that the corporate veil may not be pierced absent a showing of improper conduct. Dania Jai-Alai Palace, Inc. v. Sykes, 450 So.2d 1114, 1119-21 (Fla.1984); see also French v. F.F.O. Financial Group, Inc. 651 So.2d 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). It must be shown that the corporation was organized or used to mislead creditors. Sykes, 450 So.2d at 1119-21. Here, the trial court did not make the requisite specific finding of improper conduct. Appellees also did not present any evidence showing improper conduct or that Appellant was organized or used to mislead creditors. Thus, Appellees failed to establish a basis for piercing Appellant's corporate veil.
Appellees also failed to show that Appellant was the agent of certain non-parties to this appeal. The record contains no express contract of agency, and Appellees presented no evidence of apparent authority. See, e.g., Almerico v. RLI Ins. Co., 716 So.2d 774, 777 (Fla.1998).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's determination that Appellant is the alter ego and/or agent of certain non-parties. We affirm the other issues raised on appeal without further discussion and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED for further proceedings.
BOOTH and KAHN, JJ., concur; ERVIN, J., concurs with written opinion.