Tom Thumb Food Markets, Inc. v. TLH Properties, LLC

1999 WL 31168 (unpublished opinion) (1999)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Tom Thumb Food Markets, Inc. v. TLH Properties, LLC

Minnesota Court of Appeals
1999 WL 31168 (unpublished opinion) (1999)

  • Written by Heather Whittemore, JD

Facts

Terry Hartmann was a commercial developer operating through TLH Properties, LLC (TLH) (defendant). Jerry Smith, a part-owner of property in Minnesota, asked Hartmann to develop the land into a commercial site. Smith and Hartmann planned to form a joint venture, with Smith joining TLH, wherein Hartmann would develop the land and Smith would contribute the land to the venture. Hartmann made arrangements to develop the property for use by Tom Thumb Food Markets, Inc. (Tom Thumb) (plaintiff). Based on representations from Hartmann, Tom Thumb believed that Hartmann owned the land. In 1995 Tom Thumb and TLH entered into a lease agreement whereby TLH agreed to construct a building for Tom Thumb’s use. Hartmann signed the agreement on behalf of TLH. Hartmann tried to get a construction loan from a bank for the development, which required financial information from Tom Thumb. After a delay, Tom Thumb provided the bank with the information, and the bank rejected the loan application because Tom Thumb had a negative net worth. In the meantime, Smith withdrew from the plan, the property was sold to another company, and Tom Thumb discovered that Hartmann had never owned the property. Tom Thumb sued for breach of contract and argued that Hartmann should be held personally liable under the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. The district court agreed to pierce the corporate veil, holding that Hartmann had misled Tom Thumb about the ownership of the property. The district court further held that Hartmann had breached the lease, and it awarded damages to Tom Thumb. Hartmann appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Klaphake, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 820,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 989 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership