Court Opinion

ID: 9769469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:52:01.309235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:04.448334
License: Public Domain

DUNCAN, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with and join that part of the majority opinion holding actual fraud is required to pierce the corporate veil and impose liability on the Menettis in these circumstances and, further, the record contains no evidence to support the jury’s finding on this issue. I do not, however, join the dicta in the majority opinion regarding a corporation’s shareholders’ standing to challenge a judgment against the corporation, at 172. Nor do I read Shults v. State, 682 S.W.2d 260 (Tex.1984), to support either the majority’s explicit statement that a judgment against a corporation does not injure or prejudice the corporation’s shareholders or its implicit statement that corporate shareholders will never have standing to appeal such a judgment. Additionally, while the other case cited by the majority, Thomas v. Thomas, 917 S.W.2d 425 (Tex.App.—Waco 1996, no writ), holds that the sole shareholder of a defunct corporation did not have standing to raise the corporation’s complaints regarding a turnover order, id. at 432, the corporation was not a party to the proceeding in the trial court or the trial court’s order, id. at 431, and the court reached this conclusion without analysis or a single citation to authority.
In my view, it is beyond dispute that the shareholders of a corporation are always damaged by a judgment against the corporation at least to the extent the value of their stock is diminished, and this issue is much too complex and fact-specific to be addressed in a cursory or abstract manner, particularly in light of Texas’ express authorization of shareholder derivative suits in certain situations. See, e.g., Tex. Bus. Corp. Act Ann. art. 5.14 (Vernon 1980); Tex.R. Civ. P. 42(a).
With these comments, I concur in the court’s judgment and in its denial of the Menettis’ motion to recall the mandate and to reinstate Menetti & Co., Inc.’s appeal.