AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Ray Bishop sold a food and beverage vending machine business to Ruidoso Vending, Inc. (RVI), receiving a promissory note secured by the vending machines and business vehicles. After Bishop's death, his estate and surviving spouse sued RVI on the promissory note, obtaining a judgment against RVI for $102,062.11 plus attorney fees of $17,012.15. RVI was ordered to deposit all income from its vending machines into its attorney’s trust account for distribution to the plaintiffs, which RVI failed to do.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that RVI failed to comply with the court's order to deposit vending machine income into its attorney’s trust account for the plaintiffs' benefit. They sought to pierce RVI's corporate veil to hold the Mulhollands personally liable for the judgment.
• Defendants: The Mulhollands contended that piercing the corporate veil was improper, emphasizing that the original transaction with Mr. Bishop was made in the legitimate setup of RVI and that its subsequent operation to evade the judgment should not affect their personal liability.

Legal Issues

• Whether substantial evidence supports the district court's decision to pierce the corporate veil of Ruidoso Vending, Inc., making Mark and Patricia Mulholland personally liable for a judgment obtained by the plaintiffs against RVI.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding the Mulhollands personally liable for the money judgment owed by RVI.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (with Roderick T. Kennedy, J., and Timothy L. Garcia, J., concurring), the court reviewed the district court's factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. The court found substantial evidence of RVI being dominated by the Mulhollands for personal purposes, operated for an improper purpose to prevent plaintiffs from collecting the judgment, and that such operation was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs' inability to collect. Key factors included the commingling of corporate and personal funds, disregard for corporate formalities, and the diversion of RVI's income to the Mulhollands' personal accounts. The court concluded that all three requirements for piercing the corporate veil were satisfied, affirming the judgment against the Mulhollands personally.