Opinion ID: 1119905
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Validity of Corporate Debt

Text: Appellants raise three challenges to the trial court's finding that the $247,000 Harger loan was not a valid debt of the corporation. First, they argue that the validity of the Note and its underlying obligation were so far outside the scope of the pleadings that it was error for the court to reach that question. Second, they argue that it was error for the trial court to resolve the issue without conducting a hearing. Third, they argue that the trial court's finding is not supported by the evidence. We will consider each of these arguments in turn. Appellants' first argument is identical to that disposed of in our discussion of their first issue. This issue having been resolved by our previous discussion, we move on. Appellants' second argument concerns their due process right to a hearing prior to a determination on the loan recognition issue. We have stated that due process requires that a party called upon to answer a complaint be furnished notice of the allegations against him and a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the issues. Goss v. Goss, 780 P.2d 306, 310 (Wyo. 1989). We will allow these fundamental due process rights to be infringed only to the extent permitted by legislative or judicially promulgated procedural rules. Id. In this case, the requirement of notice and a hearing has been satisfied by the litigation which was had on this issue at trial and by the trial court's compliance with the requirements of W.R.C.P. 15(b). Accordingly, we find no denial of due process. Appellants next claim that the trial court's finding that the Harger loan was not a valid debt of the corporation is unsupported by the evidence. When reviewing a challenge to the evidence supporting the decision of a trial court, we accept the evidence of the prevailing party as true, leaving out entirely the consideration of evidence in conflict with it and giving every favorable inference which may fairly and reasonably be drawn from the prevailing party's evidence. Scaling v. Scaling, 805 P.2d 866, 869 (Wyo. 1991). Appellants claim that because they had no opportunity to present evidence, there was insufficient evidence before the court to render its decision. We have already discussed their opportunity or lack thereof in other portions of this opinion. The real question, given our standard of review, is: Could the trial court rule as it did based on the evidence it did have before it. We believe that it could, and so affirm the trial court's order. The trial court had before it Donald Harger's own statement that Joanna Johnson did not authorize the corporation to incur the debt and, further, that the Board of Directors had not authorized the loan. The Note which Donald Harger signed as president of J Bar H was admitted into evidence. Also entered into evidence was a copy of the Certified Copy of Corporate Resolutions allowing the corporation to borrow money from the Hargers. This document was signed in the space provided for the secretary of the corporation by Mrs. Harger, when in fact Joanna Johnson was the corporation's secretary. Wyoming Statute XX-XX-XXX(b) (Dec. 1989 Repl.) states that [a]ll corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the authority of, and the business and affairs of the corporation managed under the directorship of, its board of directors, subject to any limitation set forth in the articles of incorporation. Applying this law to the facts presented at trial, we affirm the trial court's finding that the loan was not a valid debt of the corporation.