![]() |
| ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||
| |||||||
| | |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
| |||
| |||
Bad Check from CorporationWhat is the name of your state? California I received a bad check in the amount of $2600.00 from a Texas corporation 2 years ago. The corporation has since gone out of business. I think that I have the phone number of one of the corporate officers. My question is this, who do I sue for the money? Which corporate officer is liable for the money? |
|
#2
| |||
| |||
| Who owed you the money, the corporation or one of the corporate officers? In many cases, the officers of the corporation cannot be held liable for the debts of the corporation unless certain laws were broken. |
|
#3
| |||
| |||
The corporation owed me moneyThe corporation owed me money. At this point I don't even know where the officers are. I think that one of them started a new business, but whenever I call I'm told that that person is not there. |
|
#4
| |||
| |||
| "The corporation has since gone out of business." *** Since the entity that owed you the money (the corporation) is no longer in business AND if their assets are no longer available, you simply have no one to go after. "I think that I have the phone number of one of the corporate officers. My question is this, who do I sue for the money?" *** You don't sue anyone. You would have sued the corporation, but since it is assumed that they have no assets, any lawsuit would be futile. "Which corporate officer is liable for the money?" *** None of them. As long as you don't have proof of any malfeasance or negligence by a former officer, that individual is immune from claims against the corporation. One other consideration... the UCC requires that a bank accept a check for up to 180 days from its issuance. Since the check is older than that, the check wouldn't be valid even if the corporation had funds in the account.
__________________ There are at least 17 lawsuits (!!) pending in various courts, including the US Supreme Court, asking if Obama is a natural born citizen (as req'd by Art II, Sec 1 of the US Constitution). Why has he spent over $1.35M in legal fees to block disclosure... rather than spend $12 for a VALID birth cert to settle the matter? The 'certificate' he has presented doesn't qualify to get a drivers license, wouldn't allow a child to qualify for Little League, or for a real citizen to get a US passport! |
![]() |