TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

DBA/Delaware Systems Corp. v. Greenfield

DBA/DELAWARE SYSTEMS CORP. v. Marc GREENFIELD Et Al.

DBA/Del. Sys. Corp. v. Greenfield, 636 A.2d 1318 (R.I. 1994)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Rhode Island · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 1, 1994
Docket
No. 92-537-A
Judges
Shea
Citations
636 A.2d 13181994 R.I. LEXIS 261994 WL 27345

Opinion — Per Curiam

OPINION PER CURIAM.

This case came before a hearing panel of this court January 11, 1994, pursuant to an order that had directed the defendants Marc Greenfield and Karl Heise to appear and show cause why their appeal from the entry of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, DBA/Delaware Systems Corp., should not be denied and dismissed. The defendants had incurred an obligation to the plaintiff on a promissory note purportedly on behalf of a corporation styled as Graphic Marketing, Inc. It is undisputed that no such corporation existed at the time of the execution of the promissory note. General Laws 1956 (1992 Reenactment) § 7-1.1-136 provides, “All persons who assume to act as a corporation without authority so to do shall be jointly and severally liable for all debts and liabilities incurred or arising as a result thereof.”

We are of the opinion that this statute is determinative of the controversy. The defendants Marc Greenfield and Karl Heise sought to raise the defense of a de facto corporation. Such a defense is precluded by this statute, which was taken from the 1969 Model Business Corporation Act. The section is designed to negate the possibility of asserting the defense of a de facto corporation. Model Business Corporation Act § 146 Comment (1969).

Consequently these defendants, pursuant to statute, became personally liable for the indebtedness that they contracted on behalf of the nonexistent corporation.

Therefore, the defendants’ appeal is denied and dismissed. The summary judgment entered in the Superior Court is affirmed.

SHEA, J., did not participate.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1996: 12003: 22005: 119962026peak 2003 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Kingfield Wood Products, Inc. v. Hagan827 A.2d 619 (R.I. 2003)
  2. Brown Leasing, Inc. v. Stone673 N.E.2d 430 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996)
  3. Valley Victory Church v. Sandon2005 MT 72, 109 P.3d 273
  4. Lischio v. the Town of North Kingstown, 00-0372 (2003)No. W.C. 00-0372 (Sup. Ct. R.I. Apr. 25, 2003)

Most recent

  1. Valley Victory Church v. Sandon2005 MT 72, 109 P.3d 273
  2. Kingfield Wood Products, Inc. v. Hagan827 A.2d 619 (R.I. 2003)
  3. Lischio v. the Town of North Kingstown, 00-0372 (2003)No. W.C. 00-0372 (Sup. Ct. R.I. Apr. 25, 2003)
  4. Brown Leasing, Inc. v. Stone673 N.E.2d 430 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list