This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

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.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.