Abraham v. Lake Forest, Inc.
Louisiana Court of Appeal
377 So. 2d 465 (1980)
Facts
Anthony P. Abraham (plaintiff) was a sophisticated real estate entrepreneur who purchased an option to buy acres of land. Abraham negotiated with a Lake Forest, Inc. (Lake Forest) (defendant) representative to sell the option. Abraham sold the option to Lake Forest’s newly formed subsidiary, NEI Corporation, Alabama (Alabama), which it formed to acquire and develop the property. Alabama purchased the option for $375,500, consisting of $172,117.50 in cash, and a note for the remaining $203,382.50. Alabama made payments on the note totaling $50,845.64. To purchase the property, Alabama borrowed funds from a bank, secured by a mortgage on the property. Alabama’s plans to develop the property never materialized, so it sold the property. After deducting the mortgage balance and closing costs, Alabama received $33,185.36 by check payable to Alabama. Alabama endorsed the check, which was deposited in NEI Corporation’s (NEI) (defendant) bank account. Lake Forest was a wholly owned subsidiary of NEI, and Lake Forest owned all stock in Alabama. Abraham obtained a judgment against Alabama for $152,536.86, the remaining note balance, plus accrued interest, then sued Lake Forest and NEI, attempting to pierce Alabama’s corporate veil and make these corporations liable for Alabama’s debt. The lower court dismissed the lawsuit. Abraham appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schott, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
