Appellant/Plaintiff Samuel Gates appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of Appellee/Defendant George Houston III following Gates’s declaratory judgment action against Houston. Upon appeal, Gates challenges the trial court’s judgment by claiming that the uncontroverted evidence compels the conclusion that Houston’s real estate operation was part of his AAA Roofing partnership with Gates.
Conclusion (slip op. at 7): The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Key Analysis (slip op. at 6, 7): Gates point to no evidence demonstrating that Houston’s contributions to AAA Roofing cannot be construed as payment for its work . . . Gates’s share in the profits was in payment for his work in overseeing the properties and collecting the rents . . . The properties at issue were purchased exclusively by Houston without any contribution—either through AAA Roofing or otherwise—by Gates. To the extent that Gates and AAA Roofing contributed labor and other work toward these properties, these do not result in forfeiture because both Gates and AAA Roofing received compensation for such work by Houston.