The plaintiff brought actions claiming ownership of a 1973 Dino Ferrari and interests in his parents' motel business, alleging improper conversion of assets by his mother's attorneys for property.
The defendants moved for summary judgment.
The court found that the motel was a partnership between the parents, the plaintiff was merely an employee, and the Ferrari was an asset of the motel business despite being registered in the plaintiff's name.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment, oppression under the Business Corporations Act, and conversion of personal property, granting summary judgment in favour of the defendants.
