Opinion ID: 4238083
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Commingled Assets

Text: Mr. Bronchick also challenges the court’s finding that he and Flamingo West commingled assets. Specifically, the court found Mr. Bronchick and Flamingo West “frequently loaned money to each other” but kept no record of those loans apart from a running total balance reflected on tax returns. App. 607. Moreover, the court noted Mr. Bronchick’s claim that he expended roughly $160,000 of personal credit on behalf of Flamingo West for which he never secured a promissory note or produced receipts. Mr. Bronchick argues the loans were also documented on Flamingo West’s balance sheets, and belabors the point that Flamingo West owed him money and was not paying him a salary for some time. He does not negate the district court’s finding that the loans between himself and Flamingo West lacked the traditional indicia of arms-length transactions. c. Use of Corporate Funds for Noncorporate Purposes Next we address Mr. Bronchick’s challenges to the court’s finding that Flamingo West used corporate funds for noncorporate purposes. Mr. Bronchick -15- accepts the court’s finding that Flamingo West used its own funds to cover personal expenses such as “Amazon Video[s] on Demand, . . . Netflix, . . . iTunes Music Store [purchases], . . . NutriSystem, [and] clothing,” as well as purchases from “Sam Ash Music, . . . American Musical, . . . Classmates.com, . . . Weis Supermarkets, and . . . Cheaper Than Dirt, a firearm supply retailer.” App. 612. The court also found Flamingo West made car payments for Mr. Bronchick’s brother. Mr. Bronchick contests these findings, asking us to forgive them since they were relatively small amounts that did not affect Flamingo West’s business operations. Again, Mr. Bronchick offers no law or logic to support his argument, and we have found none. The amount of corporate funds devoted to personal expenses does not matter so much as the fact that corporate funds were devoted to personal expenses. Though Mr. Bronchick testified that at least some of the personal expenses were recorded as distributions, the district court did not have to believe him. 2. Use of the Corporate Form to Perpetrate a Wrong The second prong of the veil-piercing analysis looks to the result achieved by the misuse of the corporate form. Boxer alleged that the wrong perpetrated by Mr. Bronchick was siphoning off Flamingo West’s assets—in some cases into Mr. Bronchick’s own pocket—to ensure that Boxer could never recover the unpaid rent. The financial particulars of the situation—which Mr. Bronchick’s appeal -16- focuses on—do not matter. The record supports the district court’s determination on this prong.