The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking over $83,000 related to a failed restaurant venture, or alternatively $30,000 based on a promissory note signed by the defendants.
The court found that while the broader monetary claims and allegations of fraudulent conveyance involved contentious factual issues requiring a trial, there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the promissory note.
The defendants failed to establish duress or ambiguity in the note.
The court granted partial summary judgment for $28,800 under the promissory note and dismissed the requests for an injunction and declaration of fraudulent conveyance.
