Tarr v. Am. Flooring Transport, Inc.
2015 Ohio 3313
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Tarr, dba Carpet Express, Inc., operated a carpet sales business; Morris and AFT transported carpet and stored Tarr's inventory in Canton.
- Dispute arose over missing carpet after AFT allegedly shut down operations around May 2012.
- Tarr filed a breach/theft action in Stark County Common Pleas on July 26, 2012; Morris was ordered to secure counsel for AFT.
- Default judgments were issued against Morris/AFT in 2012, later reversed as to Morris but upheld against AFT, then dismissed without prejudice after Tarr’s subsequent actions.
- Tarr filed the current Canton Municipal Court case on July 15, 2014 seeking damages under R.C. 2307.60 and for bailment under R.C. 1307.403; bench trial occurred October 24, 2014, leading to judgments for Morris and AFT.
- Appellant challenges (1) piercing the corporate veil, (2) classification of the relationship as gratuitous bailment, and (3) admissibility of business records related to Delta Distribution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Veil piercing standard met? | Tarr asserts Morris/control over AFT justified piercing. | Morris/AFT contends no alter ego evidence; corporation maintained separation. | Belvedere elements not satisfied; veil not pierced. |
| Whether bailment was gratuitous and duty of care | Tarr argues bailment existed with at least ordinary care. | Morris/AFT claims gratuitous bailment with only slight care; no contract or compensation. | Court properly found gratuitous bailment; low duty of care. |
| Admissibility of Delta Distribution records | Tarr sought to introduce Delta Distribution records to prove non-delivery. | Delta records lacked proper foundation and custodian testimony. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; records excluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Belvedere Condominiums Unit Owners' Ass'n. v. R.E. Roark Cos., Inc., 67 Ohio St.3d 274 (1993) (three-prong Belvedere alter-ego piercing test)
- Dombroski v. Wellpoint, Inc., 119 Ohio St.3d 506 (2008) (second prong requires unlawful act by control)
- State ex rel. Cordray v. U.S. Technology Corporation, 2012-Ohio-855 (2012) (all three Belvedere prongs apply)
- Tennant v. Martin–Auer, 188 Ohio App.3d 768 (2010) (manifest weight standard; appellate review of factual credibility)
- Pottschmidt v. Klosterman, 169 Ohio App.3d 824 (2005) (alter ego/close-corporation considerations)
- Hinte v. Echo, Inc., 130 Ohio App.3d 678 (1998) (foundation for business-record admissibility under Evid.R. 803(6))