Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Ga.App.,2009.
Pappas v. Criss
296 Ga.App. 803, 676 S.E.2d 21, 09 FCDR 1129
© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
308III Rights and Liabilities as to Third Persons
308III(B) Undisclosed Agency
308k146 Liabilities of Agent of Undisclosed Principal
308k146(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases
The disclosure of an agency is not complete for the purpose of relieving the agent from personal liability unless it
embraces the name of the principal, and the use of a trade name is not necessarily a sufficient disclosure of the iden-
tity of the principal and the fact of agency so as to protect the agent against personal liability.
**21 Kevin Pappas, pro se.
David J. Merbaum, Roswell, for appellees.
of a corporate entity. The court also held that issues of fact remained as to all other questions. Pappas appeals, pro
se, arguing that he should not be held personally liable, but for the reasons that follow we affirm.
[1] Pappas frames his enumeration of error as the trial court erred in holding “that the corporate veil should be
pierced and Appellant held personally liable for the debts of the corporation.” That is not *804 the issue addressed
homeowners and “Outside Creations” was signed by Pappas as “Outside Creations Rep.” The company name “For-
ever Green” is not included anywhere in the multi-page contract. The three subsequent contract modifications do not
even mention Outside Creations, but are signed only by Pappas. The four payments on the contract were by checks
from the homeowners made payable to Kevin Pappas, and Pappas testified in his deposition that he had no corporate
bank account, but used his personal checking account or cashed the checks to pay for labor and material.
record indicates that the homeowners knew they were contracting with a corporate entity, unlike the situation in La-
mas v. Baldwin, 140 Ga.App. 37, 230 S.E.2d 13 (1976), in which the subcontractor billed the corporation and was
paid with corporate checks.
The trial court did not err in granting partial summary judgment to the homeowners on this ground.
© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Ga.App.,2009.
Pappas v. Criss
296 Ga.App. 803, 676 S.E.2d 21, 09 FCDR 1129
END OF DOCUMENT
© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
308III Rights and Liabilities as to Third Persons
308III(B) Undisclosed Agency
308k146 Liabilities of Agent of Undisclosed Principal
308k146(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases
The disclosure of an agency is not complete for the purpose of relieving the agent from personal liability unless it
embraces the name of the principal, and the use of a trade name is not necessarily a sufficient disclosure of the iden-
tity of the principal and the fact of agency so as to protect the agent against personal liability.
**21 Kevin Pappas, pro se.
David J. Merbaum, Roswell, for appellees.
of a corporate entity. The court also held that issues of fact remained as to all other questions. Pappas appeals, pro
se, arguing that he should not be held personally liable, but for the reasons that follow we affirm.
[1] Pappas frames his enumeration of error as the trial court erred in holding “that the corporate veil should be
pierced and Appellant held personally liable for the debts of the corporation.” That is not *804 the issue addressed
homeowners and “Outside Creations” was signed by Pappas as “Outside Creations Rep.” The company name “For-
ever Green” is not included anywhere in the multi-page contract. The three subsequent contract modifications do not
even mention Outside Creations, but are signed only by Pappas. The four payments on the contract were by checks
from the homeowners made payable to Kevin Pappas, and Pappas testified in his deposition that he had no corporate
bank account, but used his personal checking account or cashed the checks to pay for labor and material.
record indicates that the homeowners knew they were contracting with a corporate entity, unlike the situation in La-
mas v. Baldwin, 140 Ga.App. 37, 230 S.E.2d 13 (1976), in which the subcontractor billed the corporation and was
paid with corporate checks.
The trial court did not err in granting partial summary judgment to the homeowners on this ground.
© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Ga.App.,2009.
Pappas v. Criss
296 Ga.App. 803, 676 S.E.2d 21, 09 FCDR 1129
END OF DOCUMENT
