Document: Harris v. RHH Partners, LP, et al., C.A. No. 1198-VCN, Noble, V.C. (Jan. 27, 2010)
Petitioner Harris sought to have the general partner of a limited partnership in which he was the sole limited partner and held a 99% interest replaced or have the partnership dissolved. The partnership’s sole asset was Harris’ personal residence. The Court found that notwithstanding the general purpose clause in the partnership agreement, there was no apparent purpose for the partnership, rejecting Intervenor Hartman’s claim that it was established to secure obligations owed by Harris to Hartman. Accordingly, the Court ordered dissolution of the partnership and held that the general partner of the partnership, which was controlled by Hartman, would have a one-percent undivided fee simple interest in the Harris property and Harris would have the remaining ninety-nine percent undivided fee simple interest in the property.