Actually, in most jurisdictions, a corporation is not completely absolved of liability upon mere dissolution. To the contrary, most states have timeframes during which a dissolved corporation can still be sued and held liable for judgments obtained against it. Thus, it is possible that Gouveia, being properly advised by a lawyer, may have determined that actively protecting that asset would be more beneficial than simply hoping no one goes after the company for the requisite number of post-dissolution years that would completely insulate the company. If, in fact, that $31 debt owed is an asset, then by simply sitting back and hoping to avoid a judgment, then Gouveia and company actually could lose control of that asset. On the other hand, by reviving the dissolved entity, which is entirely legal, he now can take control of that asset and at least be actively involved in how that asset eventually gets handled. Thus, it's a matter of controlling the asset that I think would lead to reactivation. So, the upshot is that mere dissolution does not likely lead to immediate absolution of liability for the company in Washington.
