Cutcliff v. Reuter, No. 17-1465 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment orders in an action where creditors were attempting to collect on judgments against Vertical and Defendant Reuter by levying assets now belonging to Reuter's wife. Leaving aside the question whether creditors have made a sufficient showing to justify piercing the corporate veil, the court held that creditors' tenancy-by-the-entirety theory failed under Missouri law. In this case, no reasonable jury could conclude that there was clear, cogent and convincing evidence that Reuter and his wife participated in the tortfeasor partnership as a married couple, and thus summary judgment in their favor for the claims seeking to pierce the corporate veil and reach the assets that once belonged to them as a married couple was proper. In regard to plaintiff's alternative theory, the court held that the bankruptcy court correctly determined that Reuter did not own 50 percent of the Trust as a settlor, and thus creditors' allegation that he fraudulently transferred his share to his wife necessarily failed.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Colloton, Circuit Judge, and P.K. Holmes, District Judge] Civil case - Execution of judgment. The creditors' theory that they could reach assets they claimed were formerly held by the Reuters as tenants by the entirety and were now held by defendant Nathan Reuter's wife as her exclusive possessions failed under Missouri law; no reasonable jury could conclude that there was clear, cogent and convincing evidence that the Reuters participated in the tortfeasor partnership as a married couple and owned Nathan's share of the tortfeasor partnership as tenants by the entirety. Judge Colloton, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
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.