Utah Court of Appeals
Can the alter ego doctrine apply between married individuals? Werner-Jacobsen v. Bednarik Explained
Summary
Karen Bednarik sought to modify her divorce decree with Dennis Jacobsen and to join his current wife Mary Ann Werner-Jacobsen as a party under Rule 19, claiming she was Jacobsen’s alter ego to avoid child support obligations. The trial court granted the motion without analysis or findings.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
Background and Facts
Karen Bednarik sought to modify her divorce decree with Dennis Jacobsen to increase child support. Jacobsen had a history of sporadic payments and financial difficulties including bankruptcy and foreclosures. After marrying Mary Ann Werner in 1990, the couple allegedly kept their assets separate. Werner-Jacobsen purchased a home with funds from her brother and operated Jordan Valley Cab using her own assets. When Bednarik filed for modification, she also moved to join Werner-Jacobsen as a party under Rule 19, claiming Werner-Jacobsen was Jacobsen’s alter ego helping him avoid child support obligations.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issues were whether the alter ego doctrine can apply to relationships between individuals, and whether the trial court properly analyzed Werner-Jacobsen’s joinder under Rule 19. The court also addressed Werner-Jacobsen’s standing to appeal and alternative theories for joinder including fraudulent conveyance and stepparent support obligations.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the alter ego doctrine cannot apply to relationships between individuals as a matter of law. The doctrine historically applies only to corporations, allowing courts to disregard corporate entities when there is unity of interest and the corporate form would sanction fraud. The court emphasized that individuals literally cannot meet the requirements for alter ego application. Additionally, the trial court failed to conduct the required Rule 19 analysis or make necessary findings regarding Werner-Jacobsen’s status as a necessary party.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that practitioners cannot rely on alter ego theory when seeking to reach assets of a judgment debtor’s spouse or family members. Instead, attorneys must pursue alternative theories such as fraudulent conveyance or specific statutory obligations. The case also reinforces that trial courts must follow Rule 19’s two-prong analysis, considering whether complete relief can be accorded without the party and whether the absent party has interests that could be impaired. Courts must provide specific findings and reasoning supporting joinder decisions.
Case Details
Case Name
Werner-Jacobsen v. Bednarik
Citation
1997 UT App
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 960321-CA
Date Decided
October 9, 1997
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
The alter ego doctrine cannot be applied to relationships between individuals, and trial courts must follow Rule 19’s analysis and provide findings when determining whether to join a party as necessary.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for Rule 19 joinder determinations
Practice Tip
When moving to join parties under Rule 19, ensure the trial court makes specific findings addressing both prongs of the necessity test and provides reasoning supporting its conclusion.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.