Court Opinion

ID: 9536786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:07:01.992977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:16.908927
License: Public Domain

Fontron, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed as to the appeal, but am obliged to dissent so far as the cross-appeal is concerned. Lack of time precludes any lengthy discussion of my reasons for believing error was committed in entering judgment in favor of Mrs. Poynter.
A majority of the court appears to base its aflSrmance of the judgment as to Rosalee Poynter on the proposition that her ownership of the entire stock of Modern Structures, Inc., the last of the ill-fated Poynter corporations is insufficient, of itself, to impose liability.
Assuming that stock ownership, alone, is not sufficient to create liability, the record reveals far more than Mrs. Poynter’s passive ownership of all the stock. She was authorized to and did countersign corporate checks by herself, signing those she wanted signed and returning others. She personally endorsed notes and signed an S. B. A. loan. And she signed the Annual Report for the year 1965 — which proved to be false.
It is worthy of note that Mrs. Poynter was not only a director and the sole stockholder of Modern Structures, Inc., but of Poynter Motors, Inc., as well; that she was an officer both of Economotels, Inc. and Standard Buildings, Inc.; that she accompanied Mr. Poynter on trips, acquiesced in his decisions and was aware of the financial problems besetting the Poynter operations.
Overall, I believe the evidence clearly shows Mrs. Poynter’s personal involvement in the unfortunate financial affairs of the Poynter companies and it is my feeling that she should be held equally liable with her husband. In my opinion the interests of justice would be well served in this case by piercing the corporate veil as to Mrs. Poynter as well as to her husband. (Coal Co. v. Nicholson, 93 Kan. 638, 653, 145 Pac. 571.)
*800For the reasons given I would reverse the case as to the cross-appeal.
Schroeder and O’Connor, J. J., join in the foregoing concurring and dissenting opinion.