HYNANSKY V. VIETRI
2003 WL 21976031
NATURE OF THE CASE: Hynansky (P) and Vietri (D) entered into a business venture in 1988 to purchase and develop a parcel of land. The Parcel could not be rezoned as the parties had intended and eventually it was sold at a substantial loss. P sued D to obtain payment of his initial capital contribution, which D never made, and for D's pro rata share of the business venture's losses.
FACTS: During the closing on the Parcel P and D executed a document that P purports to establish a partnership. The agreement stated its purpose to form a partnership, listed the partners, the terms of the agreement and the fact that DUPL law was to apply. It also listed respective capital contributions between the partners. D asserts that while he signed the agreement he did not read it and that he was relying on his attorney who also represented P to conduct the business in a limited liability manner. D also maintains that he was not to become an equity participant in the venture until the Parcel had been successfully rezoned. Evidence shows that D sent a memorandum to the realtor handling the sale of the Parcel and, in the course of approving the sale, noted that his approval was per the partnership agreement. P moved for summary judgment. P seeks dissolution of that partnership because it no longer has any useful purpose. P seeks payment by D of his required capital contribution and reimbursement from D of his proportionate share of the Partnership's losses which P absorbed from D's share of the venture. D also moved for summary judgment and sought sanctions under Court of Chancery Rule 11 against Hynansky.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND
DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment