McCallum Family L.L.C. v. Winger
Colorado Court of Appeals
221 P.3d 69 (2009)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Marc Winger (defendant) was responsible for managing the entire business of Manitoba Investment Advisors, Inc. (Manitoba) but was not titled as an officer or director. Marc was married to Vicki Winger and was the son of Karen Winger; Vicki and Karen were the two sole shareholders, officers, and directors of Manitoba. Marc commingled his and Manitoba’s funds, used corporate funds to pay over $95,000 of his personal bills, took distributions from Manitoba, and was not supervised by Vicki or Karen in his management of the company. At one point, Marc negotiated for Manitoba to enter a commercial lease of real property from McCallum Family, L.L.C. (McCallum) (plaintiff). Manitoba failed to pay property taxes as required under the lease from 2003 through 2005 and vacated the property seven months early. McCallum obtained a judgment against Manitoba for over $76,000. Marc caused the removal of all of Manitoba’s available funds, and the entity dissolved in 2006. McCallum sued Marc and produced evidence to support its claim to pierce Manitoba’s corporate veil so that personal liability could be imposed on Marc. Applying a clear-and-convincing standard of proof, the trial court declined to pierce the corporate veil to reach Marc, who was not a shareholder, officer, or director of Manitoba. McCallum appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Terry, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.