Almac, Inc. v. JRH Development, Inc.
1986 Minn. App. LEXIS 4669, 391 N.W.2d 919 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court will not pierce the corporate veil to hold a shareholder personally liable for corporate debts unless the corporation is merely an alter ego of the shareholder AND there is an element of injustice or fundamental unfairness. Simply incorporating to limit liability, being undercapitalized in hindsight after failure, or operating informally as a closely-held corporation is not, by itself, sufficient to disregard the corporate entity.
Facts:
- Dennis McWilliams, president of Almac, Inc., proposed that James Hill purchase a lot and build a speculation home on land Almac was developing.
- Hill agreed but chose to form a new corporation, JRH Development, Inc., to purchase and develop the land.
- Hill formed JRH Development with an initial capitalization of $1,000, with himself and his wife as the sole shareholders and directors.
- On November 24, 1980, Hill signed the purchase agreement with Almac, expressly on behalf of JRH Development, Inc., for a lot in exchange for a promissory note and mortgage.
- Hill signed the final promissory note and mortgage agreement with Almac on behalf of JRH Development and did not sign a personal guarantee for this note.
- In a separate transaction on the same day, Hill personally guaranteed a construction loan for JRH Development from a different lender, Peoples Savings & Loan Association.
- JRH Development built the house but was unable to sell it, and Hill personally, along with his other company, financed JRH Development for three years to keep it operational.
- After Hill ceased financing it, JRH Development became insolvent and defaulted on the Almac mortgage.
Procedural Posture:
- Almac, Inc. sued JRH Development, Inc. and its president, James Hill, in a state trial court to collect on an unpaid promissory note.
- The trial court found that JRH Development, Inc. was the alter ego of James Hill, pierced the corporate veil, and held Hill personally liable for the unpaid mortgage and attorney's fees.
- James Hill (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, with Almac, Inc. as the respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a shareholder's formation and funding of a closely-held corporation to undertake a single real estate project, where the creditor knew it was contracting with the corporate entity, justify piercing the corporate veil to hold the shareholder personally liable for the corporation's debt upon its insolvency?
Opinions:
Majority - Crippen, Judge
No. A shareholder's formation and funding of a closely-held corporation for a specific project does not justify piercing the corporate veil where the creditor was aware it was contracting with a corporate entity and there is no evidence of fraud or fundamental unfairness. The court applied the two-prong test from Victoria Elevator Co. v. Meriden Grain Co. The first prong, whether the corporation was an 'alter ego' of the shareholder, was not met. The trial court's finding of undercapitalization was erroneous; subsequent insolvency does not prove initial undercapitalization, especially since Hill infused personal funds to support the corporation. The alleged failure to observe corporate formalities, such as holding formal board meetings, is not determinative for a closely-held corporation. Crucially, Almac knew it was dealing with JRH Development, Inc., as Hill signed the contract on the corporation's behalf. The second prong, requiring an element of injustice or fundamental unfairness, was also not met. There was no evidence that Hill operated the corporation as a constructive fraud or in an unjust manner toward Almac. The transaction was conducted openly in the corporate name, and forming a corporation to limit personal liability is a legitimate purpose of incorporation.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the significant legal protection afforded by the corporate form and establishes a high bar for creditors seeking to pierce the corporate veil, particularly in the context of closely-held corporations. It clarifies that business failure and resulting insolvency are not, by themselves, proof of undercapitalization sufficient to disregard the corporate entity. The decision emphasizes the importance of the creditor's own knowledge; a party who knowingly contracts with a corporation cannot easily claim injustice later to reach the shareholders' personal assets. This precedent protects entrepreneurs who use the corporate structure for legitimate risk-limitation purposes, even if they operate their small businesses with less formality than a large public company.
Unlock the full brief for Almac, Inc. v. JRH Development, Inc.