Plaintiff, Gregory Mills, and defendant, Robert Chauvin, formed a partnership and took ownership of a commercial office building located on Crescent Road in the town of Clifton Park, Saratoga County. Chauvin for sometime decided that he no longer wished to maintain his ownership of the Crescent Road property and both parties agreed that Mills will purchase Chauvin’s one half interest in such property and they executed a purchase and a sale agreement establishing a purchase price of 261,176.67 and a closing date. Earlier, Mills made multiple advanced payments totaling 395,759 to Chauvin (an investor in a real estate development project in Virginia) in which Chauvin claims were investment towards the project and mills claims were loans. Mills requested that Chauvin return the payment he had in advance and Chauvin executed a promissory note that obligated him to pay Mills in full amount of $395,750. Chauvin later challenged the validity of the promissory note and claimed that Mills was not entitled to a return of his investment.
CASE QUESTIONS:
If the court had accepted Chauvins claim that Mills funds represented an investment, would the result in this case have been different? Explain.
Do the facts in this case support the court’s conclusion that Mills took Chauvins note as an HDC? Why or why not?
How did Mills’s status as an HDC affect Chauvn’s asserted defense?
In whose favor did the court ultimately rule? Why?