Tag: five years

Five-Year Limitations Period to Sue Dissolved Corporation Applies to Piercing Corporate Veil Suit – IL Court

1140970-one-pill-dissolve-in-water-with-bubbles-Stock-Photo-dissolve

Peetom v. Swanson, 334 Ill.App.3d 523 (2nd. Dist. 2002) provides a dated yet instructive recitation of the statute of limitations standards that govern corporate veil piercing actions in Illinois.

The case’s relevant chronology includes: (1) Plaintiff filed a negligence action in 1995 against a corporate defendant for injuries plaintiff suffered in 1993, (2) In May 1997 – the corporate defendant was defaulted; (3) In June 1998, the corporate defendant was involuntarily dissolved by the Illinois Secretary of State for failure to file a report and pay its taxes, (4) In November 1998, a $1M money judgment entered against corporate defendant; and (5) in 2000, plaintiff filed suit against corporate shareholders under a veil piercing theory to enforce the 1998 default judgment.

The trial court dismissed the suit as untimely under the two-year limitations period for personal injury actions and the plaintiff appealed.

Held: Reversed.

Q: Why?

A: The case involves the interplay between three limitations periods in the Code of Civil Procedure.  Section 13-202 sets forth a two-year limitations period for personal injury claims, Section 12.80 of the Business Corporation Act requires a claim against a dissolved corporation (or its shareholders and directors) to be brought within five years after dissolution, and Code Section 12-108 provides for a seven-year period to enforce a judgment.  735 ILCS 5/13-202, 815 ILCS 5/12.80, 735 ILCS 5/12-108.

Since piercing the corporate veil is an equitable remedy and not a cause of action, the limitations period applicable to a piercing claim is governed by the nature of the underlying cause of action.  The question is “which underlying action?”  The 1995 negligence suit or the 2000 action to enforce the money judgment against the corporate shareholders?

The court rejected the shareholder defendants’ argument that the 1995 case was the underlying claim and that the two-year period for personal injury suits applied.  The court found that plaintiff’s 2000 piercing action, which sought to affix liability to the shareholder defendants for the $1M money judgment against the corporation, was the underlying claim for purposes of applying the statute of limitations.  The court found that in the 2000 case, Plaintiff was not alleging negligence against the shareholders but was instead trying to enforce the 1998 judgment assessed against the dissolved corporation.  As a result, Plaintiff would normally have seven years – through November 2005 – to sue on the money judgment.

However, since the corporate defendant was dissolved, the five-year period for suing a dissolved corporation and its shareholders based on pre-dissolution debts applied.  Plaintiff’s piercing suit was still timely though.  The judgment entered in 1998 and plaintiff filed suit in 2000 – well within the five-year period.

The other argument the First District rejected was defendant’s claim that the five-year period to sue a defunct corporation didn’t apply since at the time the corporation was dissolved, the plaintiff’s claim hadn’t yet been reduced to judgment and so plaintiff didn’t have an existing claim prior to the dissolution.

The court disagreed and found that since the corporation had been defaulted in 1997 – prior to the 1998 dissolution – the plaintiff’s claim against the corporation had already been deemed valid even though the plaintiff’s money claim wasn’t mathematically certain until after the company dissolved.  As a consequence, plaintiff had a pre-existing claim against the corporation under the Illinois BCA to trigger application of the five-year limitations period.

Afterwords:

An obvious pro-creditor decision.  The case stands for proposition that in a judgment creditor’s action against corporate shareholders to pierce the corporate veil after an earlier, unsatisfied judgment against a corporation, the seven-year limitations period to enforce a judgment applies.  The only reason the five-year period applied here was because of the specific BCA section (815 ILCS 5/12.80) that speaks to suing dissolved corporations.

Still, the plaintiff’s suit was timely as he filed well before the 2003 deadline.  Had the defendant prevailed, the plaintiff’s claim would have been barred if he didn’t sue in 1995 – two years after plaintiff’s underlying personal injury.

Shocking! The Company That Owes You $ Dissolved: The Illinois Corporate ‘Survival’ Statute

image

The Illinois corporate “survival” statute, 805 ILCS 5/12.80, allows a plaintiff to sue a dissolved corporation for up to five years after the corporation’s existence ends.  So, if a corporation was dissolved on April 29, 2014, a plaintiff who had a claim against the corporation prior to April 29, 2014, has through April 29, 2019 to file suit against that dissolved corporation. 

Any recovery would attach to corporate (as opposed to individual shareholder) assets.  And because the survival act is a legislative creation, its timing requirements are strictly construed and only relaxed in limited circumstances. 

The five-year claims period tries to strike a balance between protecting injured plaintiffs and setting a definite chronological end point for a dissolved corporation’s liability.

Michigan Indiana Condominium Association v. Michigan Place, LLC, 2014 IL App (1st) 123764 presents a recent example of a court’s rigid application of and the harsh results flowing from the five-year corporate survival period in a construction dispute involving various contractors.

In 2011, the plaintiff sued the general contractor for latent defects nine years after construction was complete.  The general contractor in turn filed third-party contribution claims against two masonry subcontractors in 2012.  Both subcontractor defendants were long defunct.  One subcontractor dissolved in 2003; the other, in 2006. 

The subcontractors moved to dismiss the general contractor’s claims under Code Section 2-619, arguing that the claims were time-barred since they were filed (in 2012) after the five-year survival period expired.  The trial court agreed and dismissed the contractor’s third-party claims.

Held: Affirmed.

In upholding the trial court’s dismissal of the general contractor’s third-party complaint, the First District stated the governing corporate law principles: 

– A corporation only exists under the express laws of the State in which it was created; 

– The right to sue a dissolved corporation (and the right of a dissolved corporation to sue) is limited to the time established by the legislature;

 – Corporation dissolution has the same legal effect as the death of a natural person;

 – Corporate survival actions are based on the legislative determination that corporate creditors should be able to sue a dissolved corporation and apply any corporate property to the debt;

 – Once the five-year survival period lapses, the corporation’s “life” also ends and no lawsuit can be filed against the corporation after the survival period expires;

– A dissolved corporation can be served with process through the Illinois Secretary of State (805 ILCS 5/1.01)

(¶¶ 12-13).

In certain situations, courts have relaxed the five-year survival period for public policy reasons.  Key exceptions to the five-year rule concern (1) actions involving minor plaintiffs; and (2) where there is an element of corporate misconduct and resulting unfairness.  (¶¶ 18-21).

  Here, since neither exception applied, the Court held that the survival act’s plain language dictated dismissal of the contractor’s third-party complaint.

 The Court recognized that barring the contractor’s claims was harsh since the contractor’s right to sue expired before it even knew it had claims against the defunct subcontractors. 

Yet because the statutory language was clear, the Court held that it was required to strictly apply the five-year survival rule and time-bar the contractor’s third-party action. (¶¶ 22-23). 

To bolster its decision, the Court noted that in legal and medical malpractice cases, courts strictly apply statutory repose periods (4 years for medical malpractice; 6 years for legal malpractice) that often doom injured plaintiff’s cases.  (¶ 24).  This gave the Court added precedential support for its rejection of the contractor’s third-party claims. 

Take-away: This case presents a good summary of the philosophical underpinnings and statement of the law governing actions by and against dissolved corporations.

Michigan Place also underscores that extending or relaxing a repose or survival period is a legislative (not a judicial) function.