ÿWPC· …# VUNa %¯ 0GµU:üw@6 4v Š B™ Û 0Jã 0T- 0^ 0hß 0rG 0|¹ 0†5 0» 1uK 0dÀ U>$U*bB)ŒDCµ AMø BEìbv~NvÓÌ D3Ÿ 0@Ò AOÆa 0D' D/k Bš˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX('\$¡¡Ô€XåÙXXMXÔ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular  U  g î  g D Ó€  z!3|x C:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d âÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌò òOctober€22,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€!ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHPð€ÿÜÿìô”(üHPð€P € €'Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€­¶XXdædÈ7Ñ›à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÌRUBYE€J.€MURPHY,à àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àò ò)€€€Shelby€Circuit€No.€33465€T.D.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9510„CV„00213Ìœ›à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌLEE€JACKSON,€MAIDA€PEARSON,à à)Ìand€SHELBY€BROADCASTINGà àà à)ÌCORPORATION,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendants/Appellees.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌÙ€€ÙœßL€$&#;+'h|Ï?` Å `€€Lß›à@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€KAY€S.€ROBILIO,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òWILLIAM€C.€GOSNELLÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantÌÌÌò òCHARLES€E.€CARPENTERÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleesÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÓÓó óœà àIn€this€action,€the€Plaintiff,€Rubye€J.€Murphy,€filed€suit€against€the€Defendants,€LeeÏÑ7€­¶XXdæXXdæ7ÑJackson€(ð ðJacksonðð),€Maida€Pearson€(ð ðPearsonðð),€Shelby€Broadcasting€CorporationÏ(ð ðcorporationðð)€and€Larry€Garrett€(ð ðGarrettðð),€in€order€to€collect€upon€a€promissory€note€which€wasÏsigned€by€Garrett€and€was€secured€by€an€assignment€of€proceeds€due€Garrett€as€shareholder€ofÏthe€corporation.€€Jackson,€Pearson€and€the€corporation€responded€by€filing€a€counterclaim€forÏinterpleader€by€which€they€sought€to€deposit€into€the€court€the€proceeds€due€Garrett€asÏshareholder€of€the€corporation.€Citing€prior€chancery€court€proceedings,€the€Counter„Defendant,ÏOmega€Investment€Partners€(ð ðOmegaðð),€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€in€which€it€asserted€that€theÏcircuit€court€lacked€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€the€proceeds€due€Garrett€as€shareholder€ofÏthe€corporation€because€the€chancery€court€first€acquired€jurisdiction€over€the€proceeds.€€TheÏcircuit€court€granted€the€motion.€€Subsequently,€the€circuit€court€entered€summary€judgment€inÏfavor€of€Jackson,€Pearson€and€the€corporation.€€For€the€reasons€stated€hereafter,€we€affirm€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òFACTS€AND€PROCEDURAL€HISTORYà àÌó óà àThe€Plaintiff€loaned€Garrett€€$20,000.00.€€On€July€7,€1989,€Garrett€signed€and€delivered€aÍpromissory€note€to€the€Plaintiff€in€the€amount€of€$20,000.00.€€The€note€was€due€and€payable€onÏor€before€January€3,€1990€with€interest€accruing€at€10%€per€annum€after€maturity.€€On€July€7,Ï1989,€Garrett€signed€an€assignment€agreement€as€collateral€security€for€the€note.€€Under€theÏassignment€agreement,€the€Plaintiff€was€to€receive€$20,000.00€in€proceeds€that€were€dueÏGarrett€as€shareholder€of€the€corporation.€The€assignment€agreement€was€accepted€by€theÏcorporation€on€July€7,€1989.€Ìà àÌà àOn€April€16,€1990,€the€Plaintiff€filed€a€complaint€for€breach€of€contract€alleging€that€theÏcorporation€and€the€corporate€officers,€Jackson€and€Pearson,€had€refused€to€honor€theÏassignment€agreement.€€On€February€21,€1991,€the€court€below€granted€the€corporationððsÏrequest€for€leave€to€amend€its€answer€to€assert€a€counterclaim€for€interpleader.€In€itsÏcounterclaim,€the€corporation€admitted€that€the€amount€of€funds€due€Garrett€as€shareholder€ofÏthe€corporation€totalled€$14,099.82€and€that€the€$14,099.82€had€not€been€distributed€due€to€theÏcompeting€claims€of€the€Plaintiff€and€Omega,€which€had€served€a€chancery€court€garnishmentÏon€March€16,€1990.€The€corporation€requested€that€the€court€allow€it€to€deposit€the€sum€ofÏ$14,099.82€into€the€registry€of€either€the€circuit€or€chancery€court.€€ÌÌà àOn€March€22,€1991,€the€court€granted€the€Plaintiffððs€motion€for€default€judgment€againstÏGarrett.€€ÌÌà àOn€January€11,€1993,€Jackson€and€Pearson€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€and/or€for€summaryÏjudgment€asserting€that€the€corporation€had€dissolved,€that€Jackson€and€Pearson€no€longerÏserved€in€any€capacity€in€the€corporation€and€that€all€of€the€funds€owed€to€Garrett€as€shareholderÍof€the€corporation€had€been€paid€into€the€registry€of€the€circuit€court€as€a€condition€precedent€toÏdissolution.€ÌÌà àOn€January€20,€1993,€Omega€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss.€€Within€its€motion€OmegaÏasserted€that€it€had€obtained€a€chancery€court€judgment€against€Garrett€on€September€26,€1988.ÏOmega€stated€that€it€had€issued€garnishments€against€all€assets€belonging€to€Garrett,€and€suchÏgarnishments€included€the€proceeds€that€Garrett€was€to€receive€as€shareholder€of€theÏcorporation.€Omega€stated€that€another€creditor,€the€Plaintiff,€had€asserted€her€rights€to€theÏproceeds€that€Garrett€was€to€receive€as€shareholder€of€the€corporation.€€As€a€result,€theÏcorporation€filed€a€separate€interpleader€action€in€chancery€court€naming€Omega€and€theÏPlaintiff€as€parties.€€As€grounds€for€dismissal,€Omega€argued€that€because€jurisdiction€firstÏattached€in€the€chancery€court€over€the€proceeds€paid€into€the€circuit€court,€the€circuit€court€hadÏno€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€such€proceeds,€and€those€proceeds€should€be€paid€into€theÏregistry€of€the€chancery€court€for€proper€disposition.€€Ìà àThe€circuit€court€agreed€and€on€July€7,€1993€granted€Omegaððs€motion€to€dismiss€on€theÏground€that€the€circuit€court€lacked€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€the€funds€deposited€into€theÏcircuit€court.€The€circuit€court€ordered€that€all€funds€held€by€the€circuit€court€be€deposited€into€theÏchancery€court€for€ultimate€disposition€in€accordance€with€the€orders€of€chancery€court.€€€ÌÌà àOn€August€3,€1993,€the€Plaintiff€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€appealing€the€circuit€courtððs€orderÏof€July€7,€1993€which€dismissed€Omega€from€the€action.€€€ÌÌà àOn€December€20,€1993,€this€court€entered€an€order€dismissing€the€Plaintiffððs€appeal€fromÍthe€trial€courtððs€granting€of€Omegaððs€motion€to€dismiss€because€the€trial€courtððs€order€was€notÏfinal€in€that€it€did€not€dispose€of€all€claims€against€all€parties€to€the€action€pursuant€to€T.R.C.P.Ï54.02€and€T.R.A.P.€3.€ÌÌà àOn€December€1,€1994,€Jackson,€Pearson€and€the€corporation€filed€a€motion€for€an€orderÏclarifying€the€record€on€its€prior€motion€to€dismiss€and/or€summary€judgment.€On€January€26,Ï1995,€the€court€entered€an€order€granting€the€Defendantsðð€motion€for€an€order€clarifying€theÏrecord€wherein€the€court€ruled€that€the€corporation€was€not€liable€to€the€Plaintiff€due€to€the€factÏthat€the€corporation€had€dissolved€and€had€paid€all€proceeds€due€Garrett€as€shareholder€of€theÏcorporation€into€the€registry€of€the€chancery€court€pursuant€to€an€order€of€the€circuit€court.€€TheÏcourt€further€found€that€Jackson€and€Pearson,€as€officers€of€the€corporation,€had€only€been€suedÏby€the€Plaintiff€in€their€corporate,€representative€capacity€and,€thus,€were€not€individually€liableÏto€the€Plaintiff.€The€court€granted€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€filed€by€Jackson,€PearsonÏand€the€corporation€and€entered€a€final€judgment€as€to€all€parties.€Ì€€Ìà@ àò òLAWó óÌà àThe€two€issues€before€this€court€are€as€follows:Ì1)€whether€the€court€below€erred€in€granting€Omegaððs€motion€to€dismiss;€andÌ2)€whether€the€court€below€improperly€granted€summary€judgment€on€the€Plaintiffððs€breach€ofÏcontract€claim€against€Jackson€and€Pearson.Ì€Ìà àRegarding€the€first€issue,€the€Plaintiff€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€entering€aÏjudgment€in€favor€of€Omega.€€We€note,€however,€that€the€circuit€court€did€not€award€aÍ$14,000.00€judgment€in€favor€of€Omega.€€Instead,€the€circuit€court€granted€Omegaððs€motion€toÏdismiss€based€on€the€courtððs€conclusion€that€it€lacked€jurisdiction€over€the€subject€matter€of€theÏlawsuit,€the€$14,000.00€in€proceeds.€€The€circuit€court€then€directed€that€the€funds€be€depositedÏinto€the€chancery€court.€€ÌÌà à€In€cases€where€there€exists€concurrent€jurisdiction,€the€court€which€first€takes€jurisdictionÏthereby€acquires€exclusive€jurisdiction€of€the€case,€and€it€is€appropriate€for€the€second€case€toÏthe€dismissed.€€€òòRobinson€v.€Easteróó,€344€S.W.2d€365,€366€(Tenn.€1961);€òòWilson€v.€Granthamóó,Ï739€S.W.2d€776,€777€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1986).€€€€In€the€present€case,€the€Plaintiff€does€not€disputeÏOmegaððs€account€of€the€chancery€court€proceedings.€€Because€the€chancery€court€first€acquiredÏjurisdiction€regarding€the€disposition€of€the€proceeds€owed€Garrett€as€shareholder€of€theÏcorporation,€the€chancery€court€has€jurisdiction€over€any€claims€to€these€proceeds.€€€We,Ïtherefore,€affirm€the€circuit€courtððs€order€granting€Omegaððs€motion€to€dismiss.ÌÌà àThe€Plaintiff€also€argues€that€the€circuit€court€improperly€granted€summary€judgment€onÏthe€Plaintiffððs€breach€of€contract€claim€because€the€record€contains€evidence€that€Jackson€andÏPearson€ð ðacting€as€individuals€and€without€a€shareholders€meeting€or€a€shareholders€resolutionÏmade€a€material€change€in€the€distribution€formula€which€affected€the€Plaintiffððs€rights.ððÌÌà àThe€principle€of€piercing€the€corporate€veil€is€to€be€applied€with€great€caution€and€notÏprecipitately,€since€there€is€a€presumption€of€corporate€regularity.€€òòMuroll€Gesellschaft€M.B.H.€v.ÏTennessee€Tape,€Inc.óó,€908€S.W.2d€211,€213€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995);€òòSchlater€v.€Haynieóó,€833ÏS.W.2d€919,€924€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€There€is€a€presumption€that€a€corporation€is€a€distinctÍlegal€entity,€wholly€separate€and€apart€from€its€shareholders,€officers,€directors€or€affiliatedÏcorporations,€and€the€party€wishing€to€negate€the€existence€of€such€separate€entity€has€theÏburden€of€proving€facts€sufficient€to€justify€piercing€the€corporate€veil.€€òòSchlateróó,€833€S.W.2d€atÏ925.€€While€a€corporation€will€generally€be€looked€upon€as€a€legal€entity,€the€corporate€veil€mayÏbe€pierced€in€appropriate,€special,€unusual€or€compelling€circumstances.€€òòIdóó.€€Where€theÏcorporation€is€created€or€used€for€an€improper€purpose€or€where€the€corporation€has€beenÏabused,€the€courts€may€disregard€the€corporate€entity€and€pierce€the€corporate€veil.€€€òòIdóó.€€Ìà àÌà àThere€is€no€general€rule€that€stockholders,€directors€or€officers€of€a€corporation€are€liableÏfor€its€debts€merely€because€they€controlled€or€dominated€the€corporation.€€òòIdóó.€at€924.€€€AÏcorporation€is€a€person€separate€and€apart€from€the€stockholders,€and€the€burden€of€anÏobligation€of€the€corporation€is€not€a€burden€which€may€be€regarded€as€falling€upon€theÏstockholders,€although€it€indirectly€affects€them.€òòGeneral€Tel.€Co.€of€Southeast€v.€Boydóó,€343ÏS.W.2d€872€(Tenn.€1961).€€€Ordinarily,€a€director€of€a€corporation€is€an€agent€of€the€corporationÏand€is€liable€only€to€the€corporation.€€òòSchlateróó,€833€S.W.2d€at€924.€€To€become€liable€to€aÏcreditor,€there€must€be€some€violation€of€statutory€duty€or€other€conduct€which€establishes€aÏprivity€of€contract€with€or€tortious€injury€to€the€creditor€for€which€an€action€will€lie.€€òòIdóó;€òòMerriman€v.ÏSmithóó,€599€S.W.2d€548€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1979).€€Where€a€creditor€is€well€aware€of€a€corporationððsÏstatus,€the€controlling€stockholders€will€not€be€individually€liable€under€corporate€contracts€withÏthe€creditor.€€òòSchlateróó,€833€S.W.2d€at€925.€€€ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€there€is€no€evidence€that€the€corporation€was€created€or€used€for€anÏimproper€purpose,€no€evidence€that€the€corporate€entity€was€abused€and€no€evidence€thatÍJackson€and€Pearson€acted€in€derogation€of€their€corporate€duties.€€€Further,€in€her€complaintÏthe€Plaintiff€has€failed€specifically€to€plead€facts€which€would€sustain€a€cause€of€action€againstÏJackson€and€Pearson€in€an€individual€capacity.€€The€complaintððs€allegations€relate€only€toÏactions€taken€by€Jackson€and€Pearson€on€behalf€of€the€corporation.€€We,€therefore,€agree€withÏthe€circuit€courtððs€conclusion€that€Jackson€and€Pearson€were€sued€in€only€a€corporate,Ïrepresentative€capacity.€€ÌÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€hereby€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€toÏAppellant,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.à àÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.Ì