alter ego doctrine in Ohio

2015Franklin No. 01AP461, 2004-Ohio-1460, ¶ 36 . {¶60} Significantly for the present case, “[t]hough fraud is a frequent ground for application of the alter ego doctrine, it is not essential.” Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. Gen.

2011No. 01AP-461, 2004-Ohio-1460 , 2004 WL 583849 , ¶ 25. {¶ 30} The first prong of the Belvedere test “is a concise statement of the alter ego doctrine; to succeed a plaintiff must show that the individual and the corporation are fundamentally indistinguishable.” Belvedere, 67 Ohio St.3d at 288 , 617 N.E.2d 1075 .

1993Products Corp. (C.A.6, 1981), 643 F.2d 413 .

1992Products Corp. (C.A.6, 1981), 643 F.2d 413 .

2022This argument fails for two reasons: Ohio Supreme Court precedent prevents this claim from departing the starting gate, and as discussed above, the Settlement Agreement shields OHC from claims of this ilk. {¶37} The basics of an alter ego claim are well-settled: “[w]hen a shareholder exercises such control over a corporation that the corporation becomes the shareholder’s alter ego * * * it is unjust to allow the shareholder to use the corporate form as a shield to escape the consequences of those wrongful acts.” Minno v. Pro- Fab, Inc., 121 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2009-Ohio-1247 , 905 N.E.2d 613, ¶ 1

2022This argument fails for two reasons: Ohio Supreme Court precedent prevents this claim from departing the starting gate, and as discussed above, the Settlement Agreement shields OHC from claims of this ilk. {¶37} The basics of an alter ego claim are well-settled: “[w]hen a shareholder exercises such control over a corporation that the corporation becomes the shareholder’s alter ego * * * it is unjust to allow the shareholder to use the corporate form as a shield to escape the consequences of those wrongful acts.” Minno v. Pro- Fab, Inc., 121 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2009-Ohio-1247 , 905 N.E.2d 613, ¶ 1

2021Evidence that a corporation and an individual are alter egos of each other alone is insufficient to pierce the corporate veil; “all three prongs of the Belvedere test must be met for the court to pierce the corporate veil.” My Father’s House #1, Inc. v. McCardle, 2013-Ohio-420 , 986 N.E.2d 1081 , ¶ 29 (3d Dist.) (finding that the trial court erred in piercing the corporate veil based on the alter ego doctrine alone without “any evidence regarding the remaining two prongs of the Belvedere test”).

2010The court established that individual shareholders could be held responsible when “(1) control over the corporation by those to be held liable was so complete that the corporation has no separate mind, will, or existence of its own, (2) contx-ol over the corporation by those to be held liable was exercised in such a manner as to commit fraud or an illegal act against the person seeking to disregard the corporate entity, and (3) injury or unjust loss x-esulted to the plaintiff from such control and wrong.” Id. at paragraph thx-ee of the syllabus. {¶ 20} In Dombroski, the Supreme Coux-t of Ohio

2010The court established that individual shareholders could be held responsible when “(1) control over the corporation by those to be held liable was so complete that the corporation has no separate mind, will, or existence of its own, (2) contx-ol over the corporation by those to be held liable was exercised in such a manner as to commit fraud or an illegal act against the person seeking to disregard the corporate entity, and (3) injury or unjust loss x-esulted to the plaintiff from such control and wrong.” Id. at paragraph thx-ee of the syllabus. {¶ 20} In Dombroski, the Supreme Coux-t of Ohio

2004Ill {¶ 63} A comparison of the facts before us and the facts before the Texas Supreme Court in Gentry, supra, demonstrates the majority’s unprecedented application of the alter-ego doctrine to the facts of this case.