Answer:
Anderson Crossing Investments, Inc.
a. The land in this case was originally owned by:______
Kortney Branson.
b. At the time of sale to the mall, the land in this case was owned by:________
Anderson Crossing Investments, Inc.
c. Richard Anderson was a__limited liability______ owner of Anderson Crossing Investment Inc.
Explanation:
Anderson Cross Investment Inc. is a corporation in which stockholders enjoy limited liability. Moreover, Anderson Cross Investment Inc. is separate from the owner, Richard Anderson under the Entity concept and separation of ownerships. Hill is not an agent of Richard Anderson but Anderson Crossing Investments, Inc.
But specifically, limited liability describes the condition that prevails when an entity suffers loss in business. The implication is that the loss that an owner or shareholder of an entity may suffer is limited to the capital invested in the business. A stockholder's liability arising from his shareholding in the entity does not extend to his personal assets. So, the concept considers the extent to which a company shareholder or director is financially responsible for the company's debts. The owners cannot be sued for the debts of the entity unless they have given their personal guarantees or a competent court of law lifts the corporate veil under specific circumstances.
The corporate veil, according to businessdictionary.com, is "a legal concept that separates the personality of a corporation from the personalities of its shareholders, and protects them from being personally liable for the company's debts and other obligations."
If Kortney Branson is serious in making a legal issue of the matter, she should sue the company that bought the land from her. She can then join Hill and Richard Anderson if she wishes, though the two can submit "no case submissions."
