For Your Data Cargill, Inc. V. Hedge Representative Brief
April 13, 2016
Edit
Cargill, Inc. v. Hedge illustration brief summary
375 N.W.2d 477 (1985)
CASE FACTS
Respondents owned a farm. They incorporated the farm pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 500.24, subd. 1(c) (1973). The hubby purchased farm supplies in addition to services on delineate of piece of job organization human relationship from the creditor. The creditor was unaware that the farm was incorporated. The creditor obtained a judgment against the hubby in addition to the corporation for the amount of the debt. Respondents filed an activeness to enjoin the sale of the farm. The lawsuit courtroom held that fourscore acres of the farm were exempt from sale pursuant to the homestead exemption of § 510.02. The appellate courtroom affirmed the lawsuit court's judgment.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The courtroom affirmed the appellate court's judgment belongings that fourscore acres of respondents' farm were protected past times the homestead exemption.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations in addition to Business Associations Law
375 N.W.2d 477 (1985)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant creditor sought review of a judgment of the Court of Appeals (Minnesota), which affirmed a judgment belongings that fourscore acres of a farm owned past times respondents, hubby in addition to wife, were protected past times the homestead exemption of Minn. Stat. § 510.02 (1984).CASE FACTS
Respondents owned a farm. They incorporated the farm pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 500.24, subd. 1(c) (1973). The hubby purchased farm supplies in addition to services on delineate of piece of job organization human relationship from the creditor. The creditor was unaware that the farm was incorporated. The creditor obtained a judgment against the hubby in addition to the corporation for the amount of the debt. Respondents filed an activeness to enjoin the sale of the farm. The lawsuit courtroom held that fourscore acres of the farm were exempt from sale pursuant to the homestead exemption of § 510.02. The appellate courtroom affirmed the lawsuit court's judgment.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the courtroom affirmed the judgment of the appellate court.
- The courtroom held that the illustration was a proper 1 for a opposite pierce of the corporate veil because in that place was a unopen identity betwixt respondents in addition to the corporation in addition to world policy favored protection of the homestead.
- The courtroom determined that creditors were deemed to extend credit amongst awareness that, should an private debtor default, a homestead was exempt.
- Therefore, the courtroom ruled that fourscore acres of the farm were protected past times the homestead exemption.
CONCLUSION
The courtroom affirmed the appellate court's judgment belongings that fourscore acres of respondents' farm were protected past times the homestead exemption.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations in addition to Business Associations Law