Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Mark VII, Inc. v. Barthol, 926 S.W.2d 128 (1996)

Citation
Mark VII, Inc. v. Barthol, 926 S.W.2d 128 (1996)
Parent Document
Mark VII, Inc. v. Barthol, 926 S.W.2d 128 (1996)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
1996-05-28

Other Sections in This Document (39)

Full Text

1,125 chars
On February 21, 1995, appellants filed their Second Amended Petition in which they pled four counts. Count I was denominated an Action to Pierce the Corporate Veil. Count II sought judgment against EFS on a theory of Successor Liability. Count III sought to set aside conveyances of property from AFS to various respondents on a theory of Fraudulent Conveyance. Count IV sought judgment against Tonkin. Appellants allege that in August 1990, respondent and the principals of AFS conspired or otherwise entered into a common plan or scheme designed to hinder, delay and defraud appellants by draining AFS of all its assets, thus making it impossible for appellants to collect their judgment against AFS. Appellants’ claim for civil conspiracy is predicated on a series of alleged fraudulent conveyances and acts of corporate subterfuge that took place less than three months after obtaining their 1990 judgment. None of the allegations in the Second Amended Petition claim that any of the assets of the corporation that were alleged to be fraudulently conveyed were subject to a hen or other legal interest held by appellants.