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

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

Since purchasing the Western Motel, Ds wanted to develop it into a resort complex. D had made contact with three groups or individuals concerning the potential development of his Western Motel property. Gary Smith (Smith), an attorney from Kentucky, acted as an intermediary between D and potential investors in the proposed resort project. These individual investors would advance D money in anticipation of forming a business relationship for the development of the Western Motel. D used the money advanced by these potential investors to service the growing debt Ds had accrued on their properties. P and Ds met numerous times and eventually signed a document titled, Agreement, on April 6, 1987. Smith and D drafted the Agreement. It was an agreement between Ds and P. It provided that Ds and P would enter into another agreement forming a partnership within thirty days of the execution of the Agreement. The Agreement stated that the future partnership must include the following 'rights and obligations of the parties': (1) D must contribute the Western Motel property to the partnership, and (2) P must 'provide the means to satisfy all current and existing debts and obligations encumbering or relating to the [Western Motel] property. The Agreement also stated that P 'for the benefit of the partnership and proposed development, shall use his best effort to purchase six [6] lots' and that P will pay Ds $ 10,000.00 for expenses already accrued. the Agreement described the possibility of a 'wrap-mortgage' if P satisfied either part or all of the Western Motel debts; this section of the Agreement, however, was very ambiguous. The parties never entered into the contemplated partnership agreement. Using P's money, the parties hired a builder, an architect, and several different consultants to assist in the development efforts. In 1987, the parties contemplated a $7,000,000.00 project. The proposed cost of the project grew to an estimated cost of $30,000,000.00 in 1988. The parties attempted to downsize the project to make it workable. By 1989, the joint effort collapsed, P advanced Ds $ 397,316.45 for the payment of their debts on the Western Motel. P discontinued paying the Western Motel debts. During the period of debt service by P, he made several demands for a personal note and mortgage as security for the debt payments. Ds refused to execute a note and mortgage. P also spent $ 347,556.85 towards trying to develop the resort complex. These funds were payments made to the builder, the architect, and the host of consultants the parties hired. P filed this suit in the district court. The district court awarded judgment to P for his two years of Western Motel debt payment and for his expenditures in pursuit of the resort development. The court granted an equitable lien on all of Ds' property and terminated whatever formal relationship existed between Ds and P. Ds appealed.

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

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

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