WILLIAMS (LINDA), ET AL. VS. OATES (WILLIAM C.), ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: JUNE 18, 2010; 10:00 A.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2009-CA-001182-MR
LINDA WILLIAMS, EXECUTRIX OF
THE ESTATE OF CECIL WILLIAMS
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE STEVE ALAN WILSON, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 91-CI-00127
WILLIAM C. OATES;
WILLIAM C. OATES ESTATE,
BILLY OATES, A/K/A WILLIAM C.
OATES, JR., ADMINISTRATOR;
BILLY OATES, A/K/A WILLIAM
C. OATES; AND JOE WALTON
APPELLEES
OPINION
VACATING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CAPERTON, LAMBERT, AND NICKELL, JUDGES.
LAMBERT, JUDGE: Linda Williams, Executrix of the Estate of Cecil Williams,
appeals a July 3, 2008, order of the Warren Circuit Court overruling various
motions which sought to enforce an April 15, 1991, judgment against William C.
Oates. For the reasons set forth herein, we must vacate and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cecil Williams loaned William Oates $62,500.00 on August 30,
1990. Oates failed to repay the loan, and Williams sued Oates. Williams secured a
default judgment against Oates for the loan amount plus interest on April 15, 1991.
Thereafter, various attempts were made to enforce the judgment
against Oates. However, for one reason or another, many of which are not clear
from this record, no money was ever recovered. In 2006, this Court addressed one
of Williams’ attempts to enforce the judgment. As set forth in our previous
opinion, the facts proceed as follows:
[Williams] diligently pursued post-judgment discovery
efforts to collect the debt, but all efforts were
unsuccessful. William C. Oates died intestate on
November 26, 1996, leaving his wife, Esther, and son,
Billy, who was later named the Administrator of the
estate in July of 1998. [Williams] filed a judgment lien
against [Oates] and continued in his efforts to enforce the
judgment to no avail.
On October 22, 2003, more than ten years after the
original default judgment, [Williams] filed a motion with
the court to amend and supplement the original
complaint. The court granted leave to amend and
supplement pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil
Procedure (CR) 15.01. A second motion to amend was
also granted and entered on March 26, 2004. [Williams]
remained unable to collect on the original default
judgment and filed a motion to reinstate and reenter the
original judgment on January 12, 2006, due to the
approaching end of the fifteen-year statute of limitations
on this action pursuant to KRS 413.090. The Warren
Circuit Court reinstated and reentered the judgment on
February 9, 2006, and additionally reversed the previous
-2-
two orders allowing [Williams] to amend the original
complaint.
Williams v. Oates, 2006 WL 3334046 (Ky. App. 2006) (2006-CA-000413-MR).
Williams appealed the trial court’s reversal of its previous orders
allowing amendment of the original complaint. This Court held that the trial court
did not err in refusing to allow such amendments pursuant to CR 15.01. Id. at 1.
We reasoned that complaints may not be amended or supplemented after a
judgment is entered and finalized because there is no jurisdiction to conduct such
proceedings. Id; see Yocom v. Oney, 532 S.W.2d 15 (Ky. 1975). We also stated as
follows:
It is clear that [Williams] wants to enforce the default
judgment. [Williams] has not lost any rights or remedies
for the enforcement of this judgment, but the appropriate
procedure is not found in an attempt to amend a pleading
more than ten years after the entry of a default judgment.
Oates, 2006 WL at 2.
On September 21, 2007, Williams moved to file a supplemental
complaint pursuant to CR 15.04. The trial court denied this motion by order
entered on October 18, 2007.
On November 14, 2007, Williams renewed his motion to file
supplemental pleadings pursuant to CR 15.04. Williams also moved the trial court
to enter an order of sale against real property that was distributed to Oates’ heirs.
On July 3, 2008, the trial court denied Williams’ motions. In so ruling, the court
-3-
held that it did not have jurisdiction to accept the filing of supplemental pleadings
or “to issue any type of findings relating to the status of said property.”
The real property at issue is Oates’ former residence. In 1984, it was
purchased in the name of William C. Oates Realty Company, Inc. At some point,
the corporation was dissolved and all assets were distributed to the corporation’s
only shareholder, Oates. When Oates died, his son, Billy, transferred the residence
to his mother, Esther. When Esther died in 2003, Billy became the sole owner of
the home. In his motion seeking to have the real property sold, Williams moved
the trial court to “pierce the corporate veil and hold that [Williams’] claim is a
secured claim against the real property.”
Williams has since died and his widow, Linda, continues to pursue
enforcement actions on behalf of the estate. On appeal to this Court, Williams
presents various arguments. The gist of her arguments is that the trial court
violated her due process rights by refusing to entertain her late husband’s motions
seeking to enforce the 1991 judgment. Williams attempted to enforce this
judgment in two ways: (1) moving to file supplemental pleadings pursuant to CR
15.04; and (2) moving for the sale of certain real property that was distributed to
Oates’ heirs.
As for the filing of supplemental pleadings, we agree with Williams
that she may file supplemental pleadings pursuant to CR 15.04 so long as the
pleadings seek only to invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction “to enforce its own
judgments and to remove any obstructions to such enforcement.” Shelby
-4-
Petroleum Corp. v. Croucher, 814 S.W.2d 930, 933 (Ky. App. 1991) (quoting
Akers v. Stephenson, 469 S.W.2d 704, 706 (Ky. 1970)).
This Court’s previous opinion addressed an attempt to amend the
original complaint pursuant to CR 15.01 after a judgment had long since been
entered and finalized. Oates, 2006 WL at 1. As set forth therein, finalized
judgments may not be altered or amended. Id. Since amending the original
complaint could only result in the alteration or amendment of a finalized judgment,
we correctly affirmed the trial court’s denial of such an attempt. See Keeney v.
Osborne, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ (Ky. App. 2010).
Proceedings seeking to enforce a final judgment, however, do not
result in the alteration or amendment of the judgment. Thus, supplemental
pleadings pursuant to CR 15.04 are permitted in such instances. Croucher, 814
S.W.2d at 933 (permitting pleadings to be supplemented pursuant to CR 15.04
after entry of final judgment to assert claim for costs incurred and damages
sustained as a result of action taken by debtor to thwart collection of judgment, and
to join a third party so as to set aside a transfer of claimed property in violation of
the Bulk Transfers Act).
In this case, Williams sought to file a supplemental complaint setting
forth “transactions or occurrences or events which have happened since the date of
the pleading sought to be supplemented.” CR 15.04. Specifically, Williams
sought to adjudicate whether certain real property distributed to Oates’ heirs was
subject to execution and whether a competing judgment lien had since been
-5-
extinguished. Both of these issues are related to enforcement and removal of
obstructions to enforcement. See Croucher, 814 S.W.2d at 933. Accordingly, we
hold that the trial court erred as a matter of law in ruling that it was without
jurisdiction to consider Williams’ supplemental pleadings. So long as these
pleadings involve only the enforcement of the trial court’s judgment, the trial court
is vested with jurisdiction to consider the pleadings.
As for whether the trial court had jurisdiction to “pierce the corporate
veil” of a long-dissolved corporation for the purpose of allowing Williams to
satisfy her judgment against Oates, Appellees argue that such a remedy is timebarred because it was never alleged in the original complaint. See Morgan v.
O’Neil, 652 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Ky. 1983). Upon careful review, we find the
Appellees’ citation to the Morgan case to be misplaced.
In Morgan, our Supreme Court held that a complaint which failed to
plead an action for “piercing the corporate veil” was not sufficient to support a
default judgment holding an individual shareholder liable for the debt of a
corporation. Id. In so holding, the Court declared that “[i]t is fundamental
corporate law that a shareholder is not liable for a debt of the corporation unless
extraordinary circumstances exist to impose liability.” Id. Since such
extraordinary circumstances were never alleged in the complaint, it was inequitable
to permit a default judgment resulting from that complaint to stand. Id.
Here, Williams is not seeking to use her default judgment against
Oates to hold Oates liable for the debt of a corporation. The Morgan case is
-6-
therefore distinguishable from this case because Oates’ liability for the debt is
uncontested and firmly established.
Rather, Williams is seeking to execute against an alleged former asset
of Oates’ dissolved corporation in order to satisfy the uncontested judgment
against Oates. This proposed execution may be submitted to and considered by the
trial court via the supplemental pleadings procedure set forth in CR 15.04. If
supplemental pleadings are permitted and then filed, Appellees will have ample
opportunity to answer the pleadings and to mount a full defense. Such defenses
may include claims that the execution proceedings fail to state a claim, are not
timely, or are inequitable. Because the trial court has yet to consider or rule on the
question of whether Williams shall be permitted to file supplemental pleadings and
if filed, whether those pleadings set forth sufficient grounds on which to support an
order of execution, the holding set forth in Morgan is simply not applicable here.
Appellees insist that Williams was obligated to allege grounds to
support any specific orders of execution in the original complaint. Such a task
would have been impossible, however, since the debt had yet to be established, nor
had the means of execution. In fact, if Oates had paid the original judgment,
execution proceedings would not have been necessary. Thus, we reject Appellees’
argument that Williams was barred from setting forth a claim for “piercing the
corporate veil” in any subsequent execution proceedings because such a claim was
not pleaded in the original complaint.
-7-
For these reasons, we must vacate the July 3, 2008, order of the
Warren Circuit Court overruling various motions which sought to enforce an April
15, 1991, judgment against William C. Oates. This case is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion. Specifically, the trial court does have
jurisdiction to consider Williams’ motions under CR 15.04, but only to the extent
that these motions seek to enforce the 1991 judgment against William C. Oates.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Chester I. Bays
Bowling Green, Kentucky
S. Frank Smith, Jr.
Bowling Green, Kentucky
-8-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.