## Facts

- Raymond Victor Bethel contracted with Diesel “Repower,” Inc. to purchase (1) a marine engine and transmission and (2) three generators.
- Bethel alleged he paid in full but received none of the goods.
- Bethel sued Diesel and its president, Rex Thorn, alleging breach of contract, fraud, fraudulent suppression, and negligence.
- The trial court dismissed Rex Thorn under Rule 12(b)(6) and entered a Rule 54(b) final judgment; Diesel remained in the case.
- In prior appellate proceedings, the Alabama Supreme Court held Bethel had stated fraud-based claims against Rex Thorn.
- Bethel then amended his complaint to add Martha Thorn and Thorn’s Diesel Service, Inc., alleging Diesel and Service were alter egos of Rex and Martha Thorn and seeking to pierce the corporate veil to impose individual liability.
- Bethel demanded a jury trial on all counts in the amended and original complaint.
- The Thorns and Service moved to sever the veil-piercing theory and to strike the jury demand as to veil-piercing on the ground that veil-piercing is equitable.
- The trial court denied both motions, prompting petitions for writs of mandamus.

## Issues

1. Whether a litigant has a right to a jury trial on the theory of piercing the corporate veil.
2. When legal claims and an equitable veil-piercing theory are joined, how the trial court must structure proceedings to preserve the jury trial right on legal claims while reserving equitable issues for the court.

## Decision

- The Alabama Supreme Court granted the petitions for writs of mandamus.
- The Court held that piercing the corporate veil is equitable in nature and does not carry an independent right to a jury trial.
- The Court directed the trial court to strike the jury demand as to veil-piercing.
- The Court directed the trial court to separate or sever the veil-piercing aspect for a nonjury (bench) trial.

## Legal Principles

- Piercing the corporate veil is an equitable doctrine used to disregard the corporate form to prevent fraud or injustice; it is not a standalone legal claim with its own jury-trial entitlement.
- When legal and equitable matters are joined, the trial court must order proceedings so that resolving equitable matters does not deny the parties a jury trial on legal issues.
- Mandamus is available to correct a trial court’s refusal to perform an imperative duty when the petitioner shows a clear legal right and lacks an adequate remedy by appeal.

## Conclusion

The court required that veil-piercing be decided by the judge, not the jury, and ordered the trial court to strike the jury demand on that theory and to conduct a separate bench trial on veil-piercing while preserving a jury trial on the underlying legal claims.


Ex parte Thorn, 788 So. 2d 140 (Ala. 2000)