WPC<9 u-G "ĖGfm `^m}bUī龮b-`9vl 3ive8F,%U[ K|~I'Yn3ݘjCk1>;^$-j< q3&l). ;.ǜƒyg~'Vg6ěxC򦂣wQ*#ΚS+3C2\ L$s# %2V`{f?su7MaE5( J?މAlX|Dk/]KT 6˂3 ϲu:#Ʊ^U{I[%~@%mGU "̕د 79ԴtS/]sfN&3N>wtDoA3'\<+f %\FuǡHo8_ `COq@}TQ6sTb#\ % ^ # 0/ UWN w 4 z  i x mz 1    j 720Nb 1ud 72E  0c  1p 72 1) 72 1 72i 1 72"UNTT 0D 1 72m 0w 1 72 1 1\ 72 1 72b 1 72e 0 72!UNSS $$$''))))))h222222222222 094949494 B$5$5 0A5 D35 D-6 0KE6E6 AS66 07 0DM8 A8HP LaserJet 4Si,,,,,,0=) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular9?( C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 1.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(UhCEKQW]cioAutoList31.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.0ehCEKQW]cioAutoList41.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(uhCEKQW]cioAutoList51.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(#$  0  0hCEKQW]cioAutoList61.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.#1.(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(CEMU]emu}AutoList7(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)&(1)(EGMSY_ekqAutoList111.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(hCEKQW]cioAutoList81.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.)1.(hCEKQW]cioAutoList91.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.+1.- - (գEGMSY_ekqAutoList101.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.01.(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(1.(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular R/$      3  XX  _Ԁ XXTheTrialCourt,initsMemorandumOpiniongranting_Yater_sMotionforSummaryJudgment,quoted  _Corbin_ԀonContracts,2(1952),asfollows:   8  8`   InEnglishlegalhistory,thetermobligationhasbeenusedinavarietyofsenses.  Attimesithasmeantaformaldocument,suchasasealedbond.Again,ithas bH meanttheentiregroupofjuralrelationscreatedbycertainfacts,usually * expressionsofagreement.Thetendencyhasbeentonarrowitsusage,sothatithas  cometobeanalmostexactsynonymofthetermlegalduty.Thisisatermthat   shouldbeusedsolelyasacorrelativeofthetermlegalright.Ifaduty(obligation)  h exists,itisadutytosomepersonhasarightagainsttheonesubjecttotheduty.If J 0  alegalrightexists,itisarightagainstsomepersonwhoisunderadutytotheone    havingtheright.Thesetwocorrelativetermsexpressalegalrelationbetweenthe    twopersons,thisrelationconsistingofcertainspecificfactsofakindsuchashave   inthepastcausedorganizedsocietytogiveremediesagainstthedutybearerin jP  favoroftherightholder.Thisiswhatismeantby_vinculum_Ԁ_juris_,andbycontrol 2  thattheholderoftherighthasoverthebeareroftheduty.Pastjudicialand   legislativehistoryenablesustolookatthespecificfactsandpredictthatAcanget   judgmentagainstBifthelatterdoesnotperformaspromised.Legalrelationsare p  merelyexistingfactsoflifeviewedinthelightofapastuniformityofsocialaction, R8 thatenableustopredictsimilaractioninthefuturewithrespecttotwoormore  persons.` x` x _Corbin_ԀonContracts2(1952);1JosephM._Perillo_,_Corbin_ԀonContracts1.2, at6(rev.1993)(emphasisinoriginal) rX (citationsomitted).WeincorporatethisportionoftheTrialCourtsMemorandumOpinionintoouropinion. :  0  0` (#(##XX #  R/$      2  XX  _Ԁ XXTheTrialCourt,initsMemorandumOpinion,heldthat_S.E.A._sComplaintfailedtostateaclaimfor  piercingthecorporateveiltoreach_Yater_,individually.Thereafter,_S.E.A._ԀfiledaMotionforLeavetoAmendits   ComplaintandanAmendedMotionforLeavetoAmenditsComplaintinordertoallegefactssufficienttoinvokethe  instrumentalityrule.TheTrialCourtgranted_S.E.A._smotion.#XX #  R/$      4  XX  _Ԁ XXThePlaintiffcitestoaConnecticutstatecourtcaseandalawreviewarticleasauthoritiesinsupportofthis  argument.However,weagreewiththeTrialCourtsdeterminationthattheseauthoritiesprovidelittle,ifany,legalbasis   forthisargument.#XX #   e  R/$      5  XX  _Ԁ XXUnliketheContinentalBankerscase,thecourtinManufacturersConsolidationdealtwitha  shareholder/corporationrelationship.ThedefendantsinManufacturersConsolidationarguedthatthecourtshould   affirmthedismissalofthecorporateplaintiffsclaimsduetotheconductofits50%shareholderwhoenteredthesuit  asapartyviaamotiontointervene.ManufacturersConsolidation,2000WL286727,at*16.Thetrialcourtplaced  conditionsupontheshareholdersinterventioninthesuit.Id.,at*14,16.Whentheshareholderfailedtomeetthese bH conditions,thetrialcourtdismissedtheshareholdersinterveningcomplaintandthecorporateplaintiffsunderlying * complaint,underTenn.R.Civ.P.41.02.Id.,at*14.ThisCourtfoundanabuseofdiscretioninthetrialcourts  dismissalofthecorporateplaintiffsunderlyingcomplaint.Id.,at*1516.TheManufacturersConsolidationcourt   statedthat:  h 8  8`   Weconcludethattheapplicationof[thetheoryofpiercingthecorporateveil]    shouldnothaveledtothedismissalofthe[corporateplaintiffs]claims.Inso    holding,weexpressnoopiniononwhetheratrialcourt,pursuanttoRule41.02,   coulddismissbothacorporationsclaimsandtheclaimsofitscontrolling jP  shareholderbaseduponthetheoryofpiercingthecorporateveil.2 ` x` x Id.,at*17.ThisCourtfurtherreasonedthattherecorddidnotshowthatthetrialcourt,priortothedismissal,#XX # XXԀindicated   thatitexpectedthecorporateplaintifftosatisfytheconditionsintheeventtheplaintiff/shareholderfailedtodoso.Id. p  #XX # ^ R/$      1  XX  _Ԁ XXԀThe1984NonDisturbanceAgreementistheonlyrelevantdocumentintherecordthatwassignedby_Yater_,  individually.   (|G2/$ !.8dd8         0  XX d(|3$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _TRY,3' LetterX3' Letter 3' Letter3'T@FBp@ _IN_ԀTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATKNOXVILLE  @_August2,_Ԁ2000Session 0 _XX_ #XX.#  _S.E.A._,INC.v._SOUTHSIDE_ԀLEASINGCOMPANY,ETAL.XX    __@V V  AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforKnoxCounty    @y y No.1378521JohnF.Weaver,Chancellor   ____   `     h _FILEDSeptember29,_2000__     x     @*__AV) ` d6E<` A߈   @No._E2000_00631_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<^` A _     `     h      p   ______S.E.A._,Inc._Ԁbroughtsuitin_____KnoxCounty_ԀChanceryCourt___#XX#XX__seeking_Ԁaninjunctionandalternatively, N damages,againstitslessor,_Southside_ԀLeasingCompany,and_Southside_ssecuredcreditor,Moss > W._Yater_,regardinganondisturbance_agreement._____Yater_Ԁisalso_Southside_smajorityshareholder, .~ presidentanddirector.#XX #XX___S.E.A.______________________sought__Ԁtosubleaseaportionoftheproperty.Pursuanttothetermsof n thelease___between_Ԁ____S.E.A.__Ԁand_Southside_,____Southside__Ԁconsentedtothesubleaseandexecuted_the ^ requested_Ԁnondisturbance_agreement._________________Ԁ_However,_Ԁ______Yater_,_Ԁ________Southside_s_Ԁsecuredcreditor,refusedto N executethenondisturbanceagreementunless_Southside_Ԁreceivedaportionoftherentfromthe > sublease.___Defendants_ԀfiledmotionsforsummaryjudgmentwhichweregrantedbytheTrialCourt. . __S.E.A._ԀappealstheTrialCourtsgrantingofsummaryjudgmenttotheDefendants.Weaffirm.  ______   Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed;caseRemanded.    _0___Swiney_,_D.Michael,_ԀJ.#X& #XX.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHouston_M._Ԁ__Goddard__,_P.J._, n#" and_Herschel_Ԁ_P._Ԁ_Franks,J._Ԁjoined. ^$# _Charles_ԀA.Wagner,III,andW.TurnerBoone,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,_S.E.A._,Inc. .'~"& _Fredrich_ԀH._Thomforde_,Jr.,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,_Southside_ԀLeasingCompany. )^$( GeorgeW.Morton,Jr.,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,MossW._Yater_. *>&*  -)- @55' OPINION #XX]#Ԉ  @* @%XXBackground      ` Thisappealarisesfrom_theTrialCourts__granting_Ԁofsummaryjudgment_________to_Ԁthe  Defendants,_Southside_ԀLeasingCompany( _Southside_)andMossW._Yater_Ԁ( _Yater_).___Plaintiff,_   _S.E.A._,Inc.,( _S.E.A._),broughtsuitseekinganinjunctionorinthealternative,damages,against x  itslessor,_Southside_,and_Southside_screditor,_Yater_,regarding_S.E.A._srequesttosubleaseproperty h  locatedonMerchantsDriveinKnoxville,Tennessee,toathirdparty,_BankFirst_.#XX#_XX_Ԁ_Yater_Ԁhasadual X  roleinthismatter_since___Ԁheis_Southside_screditoraswell_as_Ԁ____Southside_s_Ԁmajorityshareholder, H   directorandpresident.___ 8  _   `    ` ____Southside__ԀisacloselyheldTennesseecorporation_which_Ԁrecordeditscorporate h  charterwiththeSecretaryofStateonMay28,_1947._Ԁ_________________________________________________At_Ԁthattime,#XX#XXԀ__Southside_s_Ԁpresident____Ԁwas_Yater_s X  _father____._ԀCurrently,______Yater__Ԁis_Southside_smajorityshareholder,presidentandgeneralmanager. H  __Southside_s_Ԁonlyothershareholderis_Yater_ssister,_Marthanna_Ԁ__Yater_._Ԁ_Ms._Yater__Ԁhaslittle 8 involvementwiththemanagementof____Southside_._Ԁ_Southside_sBoardofDirectorsiscomposedof ( _Yater_,his_sister,_Ԁand_Southside_sbookkeeper,Randall_Webb._Ԁ__Yater_ԀandWebb_Ԁ_are_Ԁtheonly  ___employee__s_Ԁof__Southside_._Ԁ______Ԁ_Webb_Ԁassists_Yater_Ԁin_keepingcorporaterecordsand#XX&#XXmanaging_Ԁan  apartmentcomplex_which_Ԁisownedby__Southsid__e_.___     ` _____________It_Ԁappears____Southside__Ԁhas___held_Ԁ_few,_Ԁifany,shareholdermeetingsorboardofdirectors  meetingsinthepastfiveyears._Southside_Ԁhasnotkeptanyminutesofitsshareholdersmeetings x ordirectorsmeetingssinceatleast1979._Southside_Ԁdoesprepareannualreportstosendtothe h TennesseeSecretaryofStateandfilesForm1099'sandW2'swiththeInternalRevenueService.#XX.#XX X #XX3#XX    #XX@4#XX ` OnMarch22,1982,____S.E.A._s_Ԁpredecessorsininterest,JoeC.andJoyce_Holdredge_ 8 andWilliamC.andVioletMartin,#XX4#XXԀenteredintoaGroundLeasewith_Southside_.TheGroundLease (x providedforatermbeginninginMarch,1982andendingonDecember31,2017,withanoptionto h extendtheleasetotheyear2042.TheGroundLeaseconcernedfivelotslocatedin___________Knoxville,_  X Tennessee,describedasLots4,5,6,7and_8________________._ԀLot4isthepropertyatissueinthiscase.TheGround  H LeasealsosetsforthascheduleofrentforLots58whichweredevelopedatthetimeoftheGround !8 LeaseandaseparaterentscheduleforLot4_which_Ԁallowsfordifferentrentamounts,depending "(  uponwhether____S.E.A.__ԀdevelopedLot4. #!    ` TheGroundLeasecontemplatesthepossiblesubleaseofthepropertyasfollows: % #  #(h83! !"3"  _8  __8`   _______3<2h  7  .3  0 ` x` x  LESSORSCONSENTREQUIREDFORADDITIONAL3<}=݌'"% x x Ќ  _8  __8`   _______0 ` x` xSUBLEASEORASSIGNMENT.󀀀Thisleasemaynotbex(#& x x _8  __8`   _______0 ` x` xassigned,normayanypartoftheleasedpremisesbesublet,h)$' x x _8  __8`   _______0 ` x` xwithoutthewrittenconsentofLessor.LessoragreesthatitX*%( x x _8  __8`   _______0 ` x` xwillnotunreasonablywithholditsconsentto_sublease____...._H+&) x x Bp Be B  0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (#(#    ` Thelessees,theMartinsandthe_Holdredges_,executedtheGroundLeaseindividually U whilethelessor,_Southside_,executedtheGroundLeaseasfollows: E 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#LESSOR:_Southside_ԀLeasingCompany% (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#By򀀀MossW._Yater_,President  (# (# ___#XX5#__XX_   ` _________________Later_Ԁ___________in_Ԁ1982,theGroundLeasewasamendedto_substitute_Ԁ_________Merchants_ԀPlaza,_Inc.as   lessee._ԀParagraph19oftheGroundLeasewasalsoamendedtoincludethe_following:   __8  __8`   __Lessoragreesthataspartofanyrefinancingofexistingdebtandas  `  aconditionofLesseesobligationtosubordinateitsinterestinthe P  leaseholdestateas_hereinabove_Ԁprovided,thatLessorshallobtain @  fromtheholderofanymortgageorbeneficiaryofadeedoftrust 0  placedonthepremises,anondisturbanceand_attornment_Ԁagreement   whichshallalsobeexecutedbyLessorandLessee....u` x` x ____________Thereafter,_ԀonNovember27,1984,_MerchantsPlazaassignedthe__Ground_ԀLease_to_______Ԁ__S.E.A.__Ԁaspart U ofaChapter11reorganizationplanforthebankruptcyofthe_lessee._Ԁ_ E ___   ` ANonDisturbanceAgreementwasexecuted_by_S.E.A._,theDefendants,_Marthanna_ % _Yater_,andJoe_Holdredge__ԀonNovember6,_1984__________________._____________ԀThe1984NonDisturbanceAgreementwas  necessaryfor______S.E.A._s_Ԁ_reorganization_Ԁplanasitrequired______S.E.A.__Ԁtoobtainfinancingtomeettheterms  oftheplan.The1984NonDisturbanceAgreementsetforththepartiesagreementas_follows:  ____________! ! ((88#"3"  8  8`   3`g2  1  .3  0 ` x` x  The_Ԁ_Yaters_Ԁastheholderoftheobligationssecuredby_the________ p Deed_ԀofTrustandtheLessor[_Southside_],asthefeeownerof ` ___________the_ԀPremises,agreewithrespecttotheDeedofTrust,the P _________Ground_ԀLeaseandanysubsequentdeedordeedsof_trust__________ @ made_Ԁtosecurefurther_borrowings_Ԁby[_Southside_],thatso 0 _________long_ԀastheLessee[_S.E.A._],itssuccessorsandassigns,   _performsallof[_S.E.A._s]obligationsundertheGroundLease u! asamended,[_S.E.A._],itssuccessorsandassignsshall_Ԁ_____________not_Ԁbe e"  joinedasapartydefendantinanyforeclosure_________action_Ԁor U#! proceedingwhichmaybeinstitutedortaken_________by_Ԁtheholderof E$" theobligationssecuredbytheDeedof_________Trust_Ԁoranyrenewal, 5% # modification,replacementorextensions_________thereof_Ԁorany %&!$ subsequentdeedsoftrustwhichmaybe_________granted_Ԁwithrespect '"% tothePremises;and[_S.E.A._]shallnotbe_____________evicted_Ԁfromthe (#& Premisesnorshall[_S.E.A._s]leaseholdestate_________under_Ԁthe ($' GroundLeasebeterminatedordisturbed,norshall_________any_Ԁofthe )%( [_S.E.A_s]rightsundertheGroundLeasebeaffected_________Ԁin_Ԁany *p&) way_by_ԀreasonofanydefaultundertheDeedofTrust_________or_Ԁany +`'* @F @e @  deedoftrusthereafterplacedagainstthePremises ..._. 3`gg݌ x x Ќ  ____  ***__  _{ +(h88(! !"3"  _8  __8`   _______3!|2h  4  .3  0 ` x` x  Thepartiesacknowledgethatitisthepurposeandintentof_____________  this_ԀNonDisturbanceAgreementtoallow[_S.E.A_],its  _________successors_Ԁ(sic)andassignstoremaininquiet_____________and_Ԁpeaceful   possessionofthePremisessolongas_________it_Ԁperformsobligations   of[_S.E.A._]undertheGroundLease_____________regardless_Ԁofanyexisting   orsubsequent_borrowings_Ԁby_________[_Southside_],_Ԁitssuccessorsand  p  assigns,andregardlessofany_________default_Ԁwhichmaynowor z `  hereafterexistonthepartof_____________[_Southside_]_ԀundertheDeedof jP  Trustand/oranysubsequent_________deed_Ԁordeedsoftrustgrantedon Z@  thePremisestosecure_________subsequent_Ԁobligationsof[_Southside_]. J0  Nothinghereinshall_____________in_Ԁanywaybeconstruedsoastolimit :  therightof[_Southside_],_________its_Ԁsuccessororassigns,fromfurther * encumberingthePremises._Ԁ_3!|}݌ x x Ќ  The1984NonDisturbanceAgreementdoesnotmakeanymentionoftherightsandobligations  associatedwith_S.E.A_ssubleaseofthepremises.  0  0` (#(#The1984NonDisturbanceAgreementwasexecutedbythepartiesas_follows:_F "#  1      __` (#` (# __  __0 ` 0 ` (#` (#_LESSOR: (# (# ___   `  _SOUTHSIDE_ԀLEASINGCOMPANY     `  By:򀀀MossW._Yater_ p    `  Its:򀀀President z` __0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#_HOLDREDGE_:Z@ (# (#    `  JoeC._Holdredge_ J0 ____0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#_YATERS_:*! (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#MossW._Yater_Ԁ"  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#_Marthanna_Ԁ_Yater_Ԁ #! (# (# __0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#LESSEE:$ # (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#_S.E.A._,INC.%!$ (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#By:JoeC._Holdredge_&"% (# (#    `  Its:President '#& ______ԇ   ` MossW._Yater_Ԁand_Marthanna_Ԁ_Yater_Ԁwerepartiestothe1984NonDisturbance  Agreementbecausethe_Yaters_Ԁarebeneficiariesofa_1978deed_Ԁoftrustwhichencumberstheleased   premisesalongwithothertractsofrealpropertyownedby_Southside_.__Ԁ_The_Ԁ1978DeedofTrust  providedthatthetractsof_Southside_spropertywouldserveassecurityforthe_Yaters__indorsement_  ofapromissorynoteexecutedby_Southside_ԀandpayabletoFirstTennesseeBankintheamountof  _$225,000.____________________________________  __#XXV#XX   ` The1978DeedofTrustwasexecutedbyMoss_Yater_,VicePresidentof_Southside_.   OnMay9,1984,the1978DeedofTrustwasamendedtoreflecttheYaterspaymentoftheFirst   TennesseeBankloanintheamountof$194,548.95forthebenefitof_Southside_.  p    #XX-#XX   ` SometimepriortoNovember1,1997,_S.E.A._ԀandBankFirstbegannegotiations jP  regardingthesubleaseofLot4to_BankFirst_Ԁforaperiodoftenyearswithanoptiontorenewupto Z@  fouradditionalleasetermsatfiveyearsperterm.Thetotalrentpaymentfortheinitialtenyearterm J0  was$330,000,tobepaidinmonthlyinstallmentsof$2,750.00._S.E.A._ԀpresentedbothDefendants :  withanondisturbanceagreement( _BankFirst_ԀNonDisturbanceAgreement)#XX3#XXԀforthe_BankFirst_ * sublease.     ` ParagraphTwoofthe_BankFirst_ԀNonDisturbanceAgreement#XX)#XXԀsetsforthanon  disturbanceagreementandconsenttosubleasebySouthsideasfollows:   0(գ88+! !"3"  8  32գ  2  .3  0`     AgreementsbyOwner[_Southside_].[_Southside_],aslessorundertheGround  Lease,herebyrepresentsthat_S.E.A._,Inc.isthecurrentlesseeunderthe  GroundLease,thattheGroundLeaseisinfullforceandeffectwithrespect  tothePremises,andthatnoeventorconditionofdefaultexistsunderthe  termsoftheGroundLease.If[_S.E.A._]undertheGroundLeasedefaults p pursuanttoitsterms,[_Southside_]agreestonotify_BankFirst_,asLesseeunder z` theLeaseAgreement,andfurtheragreestogive_BankFirst_Ԁ30daystocure jP anysuchdefault,such30dayperiodtobeginwhensuchnoticeismailed Z@ certifiedmailto_BankFirst_Ԁ....[_Southside_]agreesthat_BankFirst_Ԁmayremain J0 inquietpossessionofthePremisesaslongas_BankFirst_Ԁisnotindefault :  underthetermsoftheLeaseAgreement,andaslongas_S.E.A._,Inc.isnotin *! defaultunderthetermsoftheGroundLease,oraslongasanydefaultsunder "  theGroundLeasearecuredwithin30daysofanywrittennoticeofdefault  #! sentto_BankFirst_.IfthereisanuncureddefaultundertheGroundLease, #" _BankFirst_ԀalsomayremaininquietpossessionofthePremisesaslongas $ # _BankFirst_Ԁpaysto[_Southside_]themonthlyrentalrequiredundertheLease %!$ Agreement,whichwouldotherwisebepaidto_S.E.A._,Inc.[_Southside_] &"% consentstotheLeaseAgreemententeredintoby_BankFirst_ԀasLesseeand '#& _S.E.A._,Inc.,asLessor....3݌($'` `  Ќ     `     h      ` ParagraphThreeofthe_BankFirst_ԀNonDisturbanceAgreementcontainedthe *p&) followingnondisturbanceclausefor_Yater_: z+`'* Ї"3"  8  32գ  3  .3  0`     Agreementby_Yater_._Yater_,asholderofthatcertainindebtednessinthe  originalprincipalamountof$225,000.00,securedbythe_Yater_ԀDeedof   Trust,agreesthat_BankFirst_Ԁshallnotbejoinedasapartydefendantinany  foreclosureactionorproceedingwhichmaybeinstitutedortakenby_Yater_  astheholderofsuchobligations,oranyrenewal,modification,replacement  orextensionthereof,oranysubsequentdeedsoftrustwhichmaybegranted  withrespecttothePremises;and_BankFirst_Ԁshallnotbeevictedfromthe   Premisesnorshall_BankFirst_sleaseholdestatebeterminatedordisturbed,   norshallanyof_BankFirst_srightsundertheLeaseAgreementbeaffectedin   anywaybyreasonofdefaultundertheDeedofTrustoranydeedoftrust  p  hereafterplacedagainstthePremises.3-݌z ` ` `  Ќ     ` Itisundisputedthat_Yater_,aspresidentof_Southside_,executedthe_BankFirst_ԀNon Z@  DisturbanceAgreement.#XXC#XXԀ_Yater_Ԁagreeswith_S.E.A._ԀthatpursuanttothetermsoftheGroundLease, J0  _Southside_Ԁcouldnotunreasonablywithholditsconsenttoasubleaseby_S.E.A._ԀHowever,_Yater_, :  actingindividuallyasthesecuredcreditorof_Southside_,refusedtoexecutethe_BankFirst_ԀNon * DisturbanceAgreement._Yater_,as_Southside_ssecuredcreditor,demandedthatinexchangeforhis  executionoftheBankFirstNonDisturbanceAgreement,S.E.A.giveSouthside2530%oftherent   thatitreceivedfrom_BankFirst_Ԁunderthesublease._S.E.A._Ԁdidnotagreetothisdemand._Yater_Ԁnever  executed,inhisindividualcapacity,the_BankFirst_ԀNonDisturbanceAgreement._Southside_Ԁnever  encouraged_Yater_,individually,toexecutethe_BankFirst_ԀNonDisturbanceAgreement.Thereafter,  thepotentialsubleasebetween_S.E.A._Ԁand_BankFirst_Ԁfailed.     ` _S.E.A._ԀfiledsuitandinitiallysoughtaninjunctionrequiringDefendantstoexecute  thedocumentsneededforthe_BankFirst_Ԁsubleaseand,inthealternative,soughtdamagesassociated  withthelossofthebenefitofthe_BankFirst_Ԁsublease._Yater_ԀfiledaMotionforSummaryJudgment p whichtheTrialCourtgranted.TheTrialCourt,initsMemorandumOpinion,heldthat:(1)_Yater_, z` individually,hadnocontractualdutytoexecutethe_BankFirst_ԀNonDisturbanceAgreementandthat jP _Yater_sexecutionofthe1984NonDisturbanceAgreementdidnotimposeanyobligationon_Yater_ Z@ toexecuteanothernondisturbanceagreement;(2)_Yater_srefusaltoexecutethe_BankFirst_ԀNon J0 DisturbanceAgreementasanindividualdidnotwarrantpiercing_Southside_scorporateveil,andin :  turn,subjecting_Yater_,asmajorityshareholder,topersonalliability.Yaterdidnotexercisecontrol *! overSouthsidetocauseittocommitanywronguponthePlaintiffas_Southside_Ԁcompliedwithits "  contractualdutiesandobligationsundertheGroundLeaseand#XXմ#XXexecutedthe_BankFirst_ԀNon  #! DisturbanceAgreement.; "#  2       #"    ` Thereafter,_Southside_ԀfiledaMotionforSummaryJudgmentwhichtheTrialCourt %!$ granted.TheTrialCourt,initsMemorandumOpiniongranting_Southside_sMotion,heldthatthere &"% wasnogenuineissueofmaterialfact,findingthat:  8  8`   [thePlaintiffmade]noactionableallegation...thatthedefendant  _Southside_Ԁfailedtocomplywithanyofitscontractualobligationsto  theplaintiff.Thedefendant_Southside_Ԁexecutedanddeliveredall  documentsthattheplaintiffrequestedthedefendant_Southside_Ԁto  execute. ` x` x #XX#XX @))%Discussion       ` Whilenotstatedby_S.E.A._Ԁexactlythisway,_S.E.A._Ԁraisesthefollowingissueswith z `  respectto_Southside_:(1)whether_Southside_Ԁbreachedtheleaseagreementanditsdutyofgoodfaith jP  byitsfailuretocause_Yater_Ԁtoexecutethenondisturbanceagreementforthesublease,andby Z@  _Yater_sdemandthataportionofthesubleaserentbeprovidedto_Southside_,and(2)whetherthe J0  corporateveilof_Southside_Ԁshouldbepiercedinreversesoastorender_Southside_Ԁliableforthe :  failureof_Yater_Ԁtoexecutethenondisturbanceagreement.Withrespectto_Yater_,_S.E.A._Ԁraisesthe * followingissuesonappeal:(1)whether_Yater_,aslenderto_Southside_,hadanindependentor  contractualdutytoexecutethenondisturbanceagreement,(2)whether_Southside_scorporateform   shouldbedisregardedsothat_Southside_smajorityshareholder,_Yater_,isheldliableforhisrefusal  toexecutethenondisturbanceagreement,and(3)whether_Yater_,aspresidentandagentof  _Southside_,isliableforhisactionstakenonbehalfof_Southside_.  #XXm#XX0  0` (#(# ` (#` (#    ` OurSupremeCourtoutlinedthestandardofreviewofamotionforsummary  judgmentinStaplesv.CBL&Assoc.,15S.W.3d83(Tenn.2000):   Xn@ XXX8  Thestandardsgoverninganappellatecourt'sreviewofamotionforsummary l judgmentarewellsettled.Sinceourinquiryinvolvespurelyaquestionoflaw,no rX presumptionofcorrectnessattachestothelowercourt'sjudgment,andourtaskis ^D confinedtoreviewingtherecordtodeterminewhethertherequirementsofTenn.R. J0 Civ.P.56havebeenmet.SeeHunterv.Brown,955S.W.2d49,50-51(Tenn.1997); 6 _Cowden_Ԁv.SovranBank/CentralSouth,816S.W.2d741,744(Tenn.1991). "  TennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure56.04providesthatsummaryjudgmentis ! appropriatewhere:(1)thereisnogenuineissuewithregardtothematerialfacts !  relevanttotheclaimordefensecontainedinthemotion,seeByrdv.Hall,847 "! S.W.2d208,210(Tenn.1993);and(2)themovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentas #" amatteroflawontheundisputedfacts.SeeAndersonv.StandardRegisterCo.,857 $ # S.W.2d555,559(Tenn.1993).Themovingpartyhastheburdenofprovingthatits %!$ motionsatisfiestheserequirements.SeeDownenv.AllstateIns.Co.,811S.W.2d &|"% 523,524(Tenn.1991).Whenthepartyseekingsummaryjudgmentmakesaproperly 'h#& supportedmotion,theburdenshiftstothenonmovingpartytosetforthspecificfacts n(T$' establishingtheexistenceofdisputed,materialfactswhichmustberesolvedbythe Z)@%( trieroffact.SeeByrdv.Hall,847S.W.2dat215.F*,&)   0  0` (#(#2+'*` (#` (# 8  Toproperlysupportitsmotion,themovingpartymusteitheraffirmativelynegatean  essentialelementofthenon-movingparty'sclaimorconclusivelyestablishan  affirmativedefense.See_McCarley_Ԁv.WestQualityFoodServ.,960S.W.2d585,588  (Tenn.1998);Robinsonv.Omer,952S.W.2d423,426(Tenn.1997).Ifthemoving  partyfailstonegateaclaimedbasisforthesuit,thenon-movingparty'sburdento  produceevidenceestablishingtheexistenceofagenuineissuefortrialisnot  triggeredandthemotionforsummaryjudgmentmustfail.SeeMcCarleyv.West   QualityFoodServ.,960S.W.2dat588;Robinsonv.Omer,952S.W.2dat426.Ifthe  t movingpartysuccessfullynegatesaclaimedbasisfortheaction,thenon-moving z ` partymaynotsimplyrestuponthepleadings,butmustofferprooftoestablishthe f L  existenceoftheessentialelementsoftheclaim.R 8    8  Thestandardsgoverningtheassessmentofevidenceinthesummaryjudgment *  contextarealsowellestablished.Courtsmustviewtheevidenceinthelightmost   favorabletothenonmovingpartyandmustalsodrawallreasonableinferencesinthe   nonmovingparty'sfavor.SeeRobinsonv.Omer,952S.W.2dat426;Byrdv.Hall,   847S.W.2dat210-11.Courtsshouldgrantasummaryjudgmentonlywhenboththe  factsandtheinferencestobedrawnfromthefactspermitareasonablepersonto  reachonlyoneconclusion.SeeMcCallv.Wilder,913S.W.2d150,153(Tenn.1995);  Carvellv.Bottoms,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995).#XX X Xn@##XXo#XX   Staples,15S.W.3dat8889. z`    ` Afactis materialforsummaryjudgmentpurposes,ifitmustbedecidedinorder Z@  toresolvethesubstantiveclaimordefenseatwhichthemotionisdirected.Lutherv.Compton, J0 5S.W.3d635,639(Tenn.1999)(citingByrdv.Hall,847S.W.2dat211). :     ` Atrialcourtsinterpretation#XX#XXԀofacontractisamatteroflawthatistobereviewedde  novoonappealwithnopresumptionofcorrectness.SeeGuilianov.Cleo,Inc.,995S.W.2d88,95   (Tenn.1999)(citingHamblenCountyv.CityofMorristown,656S.W.2d331,33536(Tenn.1983));  ParkPlaceCtr.Enter.v.ParkPlaceMallAssoc.,836S.W.2d113,116(Tenn.Ct.App.1992).Our  SupremeCourtinGuilianov.Cleo,addressedthecourtsrolewheninterpretingcontractsasfollows:   8  8`   Whenresolvingdisputesconcerningcontractinterpretations,ourtask "! istoascertaintheintentionofthepartiesbasedupontheusual, #" natural,andordinarymeaningofthecontractuallanguage.$ #` x` x _Guiliano_,995S.W.2dat95(citingHamblenCounty,656S.W.2dat33334;BobPearsallMotors, z&`"% Inc.v.RegalChryslerPlymouth,Inc.,521S.W.2d578,580(Tenn.1975)).Inaddition, [_i]n_Ԁthe j'P#& absenceoffraudormistake,courtsshouldconstruecontractsaswritten.Marshallv.Jackson& Z(@$' JonesOils,Inc.,20S.W.3d678,681(Tenn.Ct.App.1999)(citationsomitted).#XX?#XXAlso,thecourts J)0%( should avoidstrainedconstructionsthatcreateambiguitieswherenoneexist.Id.at682. :* &) Furthermore, [t]hecourtsmaynotmakeanewcontractforpartieswhohavespokenforthemselves, *+'* ...andmaynotrelievepartiesofthecontractualobligationssimplybecausetheseobligationslater  provetobeburdensomeorunwise.Id.at682(citingPettyv.Sloan,197Tenn.630,640,277   S.W.2d355,359(1955);Atkinsv.Kirkpatrick,823S.W.2d547,553(Tenn.Ct.App.1991)).     ` Inthismatter,the1982GroundLeaseconstitutedanagreementbetweenSouthside  andS.E.A.spredecessorsininterest.Theplainlanguageofneitherthe1982GroundLeasenorthe  AmendedGroundLeasecreatesanyobligationordutyofYater,asasecuredcreditorof_Southside_,   toexecutetherequestednondisturbanceagreement._Yater_Ԁwasnotapartytothesecontracts.See   id.;1JosephM.Perillo,CorbinonContracts1.2,at6(rev.1993)(statingthat [i]tiscommonly   saidthatacontractcannotexisteventhoughtherehavebeenexpressionsofmutualassent,unless  p  thereisalsoalegalobligation.)(emphasisadded).8 "#  3       z `     ` Furthermore,therecorddoesnotcontainanyproofthatthepartiesintentionswere Z@  otherwise.#XX#XXԀThe1982GroundLeasedoesstatethat_Southside_,asthelessor,maynotunreasonably J0  withholditsconsenttoasubleasebythelessee.Theundisputedfactsshowthat_Southside_,through :  itspresident,_Yater_,executedtheBankFirstNonDisturbanceAgreementand,therefore,consented * tothesubleaseforLot4.Moreover,whiletheAmendedGroundLeasespeaksofthedutyof  Southside,aslessor,toobtainanondisturbanceagreement,thisdutyaroseonlyinthecontextof    anyrefinancingofexistingdebt._S.E.A._srequestforanewandseparatenondisturbance  agreementinthisinstancedidnotarisefromthecircumstancescontemplatedbytheAmended  GroundLease.      ` _S.E.A._sargumentthatYater,aslender,hadadutyatcommonlawtoexecuteanon  disturbanceagreementforapotentialsublesseeissimilarlyrejected._S.E.A._Ԁconcedesthatthereis  noTennesseecaselawregardingthisissue.> "#  4      ׀Accordingly,weholdthatYater,asSouthsideslender,  didnothaveaduty,eithercontractuallyor#XXK#XXatcommonlaw,toexecutetherequestednondisturbance   agreementforthebenefitofapotential_sublessee_.     (5h880   ` _S.E.A._ԀalsocontendsthatSouthsidebreacheditsdutyofgoodfaithunderthe1982  p  GroundLeaseby(1)SouthsidesfailuretocauseYater,itscreditor,toexecutetheBankFirstNon z `  DisturbanceAgreement;and(2)therequestofYater,actingasanindividual,that25%30%ofthe jP  rentreceivedbyS.E.A.fromBankFirstbegivento_Southside_.O Xn@ XXXurSupremeCourtdiscussedthe Z@  natureofthedutyofgoodfaithinWallacev.NationalBankofCommerce,938S.W.2d684(Tenn. Z@  1997): F,  8  8`   InTennessee,thecommonlawimposesadutyofgoodfaithinthe  performanceofcontracts.Thisrulehasbeenconsideredinseveral   recentdecisionsoftheCourtofAppeals.Thelawregardingthegood  faithperformanceofcontractswaswellstatedbytheCourtof  AppealsinTSCIndustries,Inc.v.Tomlin,743S.W.2d169,173  (Tenn.App.1987):` x` x 8  8`   8 ` x` xItistruethatthereisimpliedineverycontractaduty x ofgoodfaithandfairdealinginitsperformanceand ~d enforcement,andapersonispresumedtoknowthe jP law.SeeRestatement(2d)Contracts,#XX X Xn@#6Xn@ XXX205(1979). V< Whatthisdutyconsistsof,however,dependsuponthe B( individualcontractineachcase.Inconstruing . contracts,courtslooktothelanguageofthe  instrumentandtotheintentionoftheparties,and   imposeaconstructionwhichisfairandreasonable.    8  8`   InCovingtonv.Robinson,723S.W.2d643,64546(Tenn.App. "! 1986),whichwasrelieduponbytheCourtofAppealsinTSC #" Industries,theCourtofAppealsheldthatindeterminingwhetherthe $ # partiesactedingoodfaithintheperformanceofacontract,thecourt %t!$ mustjudgetheperformanceagainsttheintentofthepartiesas z&`"% determinedbyareasonableandfairconstructionofthelanguageof f'L#& theinstrument.Inalaterdecision,theCourtofAppealsheldthat  goodfaithinperformanceismeasuredbythetermsofthecontract.   They[theparties]maybyagreement,however,determinethe  standardsbywhichtheperformanceofobligationsaretobe  measured.#XX X6Xn@2# Xn@ XXXԀBankofCrockettv.Cullipher,752S.W.2d84,91(Tenn.  App.1988)(alterationinoriginal).` x` x 8  8`   @$$(` x` x***  t 8  8`   [Inthiscase,][t]helanguageoftheagreementsclearlystatestheterms f L  andreflectstheintentoftheparties....Performanceofacontract R 8  accordingtoitstermscannotbecharacterizedasbadfaith. >$  (emphasisadded).* ` x` x 8  @$$(  ***   8  8`   [_I]t_Ԁshouldbenotedthatthecommonlawdutyofgoodfaithinthe  performanceofacontractdoesnotapplytotheformationofa  contract.SeeRestatement(Second)ofContracts,#XX X Xn@#6Xn@ XXX205_cmt_.c  (1979).#XX X6Xn@# Xn@ XXXԀConsequently,thecommonlawdutyofgoodfaithdoesnot  extendbeyondtheagreedupontermsofthecontractandthe p reasonablecontractualexpectationsoftheparties.SeeSheetsv. v\ Knight,308Or.220,779P.2d1000(1989)(emphasisadded).bH` x` x Wallacev.NationalBankofCommerce,938S.W.2dat686687.#XX X Xn@!##XX# :     ` XX Inthismatter,noneofthedocumentsexecutedby_S.E.A._ԀandSouthside,including >$ the1982GroundLease,theAmendedGroundLease,andthe1984NonDisturbanceAgreement, . containtermsthatrequire_Southside_ԀsomehowtocauseitscreditortoexecutetheBankFirstNon  DisturbanceAgreement._Southside_Ԁperformeditscontractualdutiesandobligationsbyexecuting  theBankFirstNonDisturbanceAgreement.Accordingly,Southsidesconductcannotbe  characterizedasbadfaith.       `    ` _S.E.A._ԀalsocontendsthatSouthsidescorporateformshouldbedisregardedandthat "! SouthsideandYatershouldbetreatedasoneandthesame._S.E.A._Ԁarguesthatthecorporateveilof #" SouthsideshouldbepiercedsoastorenderYater,theindividual,liablefortherefusalofSouthsides $ # presidentandmajorityshareholder,whoalsohappenstobeYater,toexecutetheBankFirstNon %!$ DisturbanceAgreement.Ontheotherhand,_S.E.A._ԀalsoarguesthatthecorporateveilofSouthside &t"% shouldbepierced,inreverse,tofindSouthsideliablefortheactionsofYater,itsmajority ~'d#& shareholder._S.E.A._ԀarguesthatYatersrefusal,astheindividualcreditorofSouthside,toexecute n(T$' theBankFirstNonDisturbanceAgreementshouldbeattributedtoSouthside.This,accordingto ^)D%( _S.E.A._sargument,wouldconstituteabreachofthe1982GroundLeasetermsinceSouthside,in N*4&) essence,hadwithheldits effectiveconsenttothesubleasethroughtheconductofYater. >+$'* Ї   ` Courtspiercethecorporateveil,ordisregardthecorporateentity,tofindthe true  ownersoftheentity...liablewhenthecorporationisliableforadebtbutiswithoutfundsdueto   somemisconductonthepartoftheofficersanddirectors._Muroll_Ԁ_Gesellschaft_Ԁ_M.B.H._Ԁv.Tennessee  Tape,Inc.,908S.W.2d211,213(Tenn.Ct.App.1995)(citingAndersonv._Durbin_,740S.W.2d417  (Tenn.Ct.App.1987));seeManufacturersConsolidationServ.,Inc.v.Rodell,Nos.W199800889  COAR3CV,W199800882COAR9CV,2000WL286727,at*16n.12(Tenn.Ct.App.Mar.  10,2000)(appl.perm.appealfiledJune11,2000)(statingthat [t]raditionally,courtshaveusedthis   theorytoimposeliabilityagainstacontrollingshareholderwhohasusedthecorporateentityto   avoidhislegalobligations.) Acorporationanditsstockholdersaredistinctlegalentitiesevenif   allthestockinthecorporationisownedbyonestockholder.Haddenv.CityofGatlinburg,746  p  S.W.2d687,689(Tenn.1988)(citingParkerv.BethelHotelCo.,96Tenn.252,34S.W.209,215 z `  (1896)).Whenfacedwiththeissueofpiercingthecorporateveil,courtsshouldproceedwith jP  caution.Schlaterv.Haynie,833S.W.2d919,925(Tenn.Ct.App.1991)(quoting18Am.Jur.2d Z@  Corporations,43,at842,n.79,80,81)(statingthat theprincipleofpiercingthefictionofthe J0  corporateveilistobeappliedwithgreatcautionandnotprecipitately,sincethereisapresumption :  ofcorporateregularity).ThisCourtinSchlaterv.Haynie,discussedtheissueofpiercingthe * corporateveilasfollows:  8  8`   Theseparateidentityofacorporationmaybedisregardedupona  showingthatitisashamoradummyorwherenecessaryto  accomplishjustice.OakRidgeAutoRepairServ.v.CityFinance  Co.,57Tenn.App.707,425S.W.2d620.` x` x 8  8`   Inanappropriatecaseandinfurtheranceoftheendsofjustice,a  corporationandtheindividualorindividualsowningallitsstockand  assetswillbetreatedasidentical.E.O.Bailey&Co.v.Union p PlantersTitleGuarantyCo.,33Tenn.App.439,232S.W.2d309.z`` x` x @  '*** Z@ 8  8`   Eachcaseinvolvingdisregardofthecorporateentitymustrestupon :  itsspecialfacts.Generally,noonefactorisconclusivein *! determiningwhetherornottodisregardacorporateentity;usuallya "  combinationoffactorsispresentinaparticularcaseandisrelied  #! upontoresolvetheissue.18_Am.Jur_.2dCorporations,48,[at]847, #" [n.]41and42.$ #` x` x 8  8`   Eventhoughcorporateformalitieshavebeenobserved,onemaystill &"% challengethecorporateentitybyshowingthathehasbeenthevictim '#& ofsomebasicallyunfairdevicebywhichthecorporateformof ($' businessorganizationhasbeenusedtoachieveaninequitableresult )%( ....18Am.Jur.2dCorporations,48,[at]851,[n.]60,61.*p&)` x` x  z+`'* 8  8`   Whilegenerally,acorporationwillbelookedonasalegalentity..  .,thecorporatefictionwillbedisregardedandthecorporateveil   piercedinappropriate,special,unusualorcompellingcircumstances,  aswheresufficientreasontothecontraryappears,wherethe  corporationiscreatedorusedforanimproperpurpose,orwherethe  corporateformhasbeenabused,aswhenusedtoanendsubversive  ofthecorporationspolicy.Insuchcases,courtswilldisregardthe   corporateentityanddealwithsubstanceratherthanform,asthough   thecorporationdidnotexist....18_C.J.S._ԀCorporations9,[at]   274,275. p ` x` x 8  8`   Thereisapresumptionthatacorporationisadistinctentity,separate jP  fromitsshareholders,officers,directorsoraffiliatedcorporations, Z@  andthepartywishingtonegatetheexistenceofsuchseparateentity J0  hastheburdenofprovingfactssufficienttojustifypiercingthe :  corporateveil.18C.J.S.Corporations18,[at]290.*` x` x Schlaterv.Haynie,833S.W.2dat925.        ` Althoughtheissueofwhethertopierceacorporateveilisnotgenerallysuitablefor  summaryjudgment,wefindthattheTrialCourtinthismattercorrectlygrantedsummaryjudgment  totheDefendants.SeeMikev.PoGroup,Inc.,937S.W.2d790,795(Tenn.1996);ElectricPower  Bd.ofChattanoogav.St.JosephValleyStructuralSteelCorp.,691S.W.2d522,526(Tenn.1985). XX  #XX '#Fromtheundisputedmaterialfacts,_Southside_Ԁisnotashamoradummycorporation.See_Schlater_  v._Haynie_,833_S.W._Ԁ2dat925(citingOakRidgeAutoRepairServ.v.CityFinanceCo.,425S.W.2d  620,622(Tenn.Ct.App.1967)).Southsidescorporateformhasbeeninexistencesince1947. p AlthoughSouthsideisacloselyheldcorporation,itisstillalegalentitywithaseparateidentity z` fromitsmajorityshareholderasithasofficers,aboardofdirectors,andconductsbusinessactivities. jP Seeid.at925926(statingthat theownersofacorporationhavearighttocontrolitsolongasthey Z@ donotusethecontroltodefraudcreditorsofthecorporation.)Furthermore,andmostimportantly, J0 fromtheundisputedmaterialfacts,_Southside_Ԁdidnotuseitscorporateformforanimproperpurpose :  orabuseitscorporateform.Seeid.at925.(citing18C.J.S.Corporations9,at274,275). *! SouthsidedidnotwithholdconsenttoS.E.A.ssubleaseofLot4andinfact,executedtheBankFirst "  NonDisturbanceAgreementviaitspresident,Yater.Accordingly,weagreewiththeTrialCourts  #! determinationthattheundisputedmaterialfactsofthismatterrequirethatSouthsidescorporateveil #" notbepierced. $ #    ` _S.E.A._sargumentthatthecorporateveilshouldbepiercedinreversesoastorender &"% Southsideliablefor_Yater_srefusaltoexecutetheBankFirstNonDisturbanceAgreementalsofails '#& forthereasonsalreadydiscussedastowhy_Southside_scorporateveilshouldnotbepierced. ($' Further,areviewofTennesseecourtdecisionsindicatesthatnoTennesseecourthasaddressedthis )%( issueinthecontextofashareholder/corporationrelationship.AlthoughourSupremeCourtin *p&) ContinentalBankersLifeIns.Co.oftheSouthv.TheBankofAlamo,578S.W.2d625(Tenn.1979), z+`'* implicitlyrecognizedthatthecorporateveilcouldbepiercedinreverse,wefindthatcasetobe  inapplicabletothecircumstancesbeforeus.ThecourtinContinentalBankersexaminedthisissue   inthecontextofaparent/subsidiarycorporationrelationship.Here,_S.E.A._Ԁisseekingtopiercethe  corporateveilinreversesoastomakethecorporationliablefortheconductofitsmajority  shareholder.ThisCourtinSchlaterv._Haynie_distinguishedtheContinentalBankerscasewhich  involvedparent/subsidiarycorporationsfromcasesinvolvingshareholder/corporationrelationships.  Schlaterv.Haynie,833S.W.2dat925(appl.perm.appealdeniedMay11,1992)(statingthat    ContinentalBankers...involvedaparentcorporationanditssubsidiaryandisnotapplicableto   thepresentcaseforthatreason).TheonlyotherTennesseedecisionwhichinvolvesthisissueis   ManufacturersConsolidationServ.,Inc.,v.Rodell,2000WL286727,at*16n.12,inwhichthis  p  Courtbrieflydiscussedthisissueanditstreatmentbyotherjurisdictionsbutstoppedshortof z `  applyingthisrule.C "#  5      ׀Accordingly,weholdtheTrialCourtdidnoterrindecliningtopiercethe jP  corporateveilinreverse. Z@   @*@FF%CONCLUSION  :    ThejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmed,andthismatterremandedforfurtherproceedings  asmayberequired,ifany,consistentwiththisOpinion,andforcollectionofthecostsbelow.Costs   ofthisappealaretaxedtotheAppellant,_S.E.A._,Inc.,anditssurety.    0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#h(#h(#    `     h      p      x    `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     D.MICHAELSWINEY,JUDGE