[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-302612-105":53,"doc-detail-302612-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","court-of-special-appeals-of-maryland-no-1551-opinion","Court of Special Appeals of Maryland - No. 1551 - Opinion","","Legal opinion from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals addressing whether the trial court properly granted motions for judgment in a partnership dispute. The appellant contested judgment on fraud and the damages calculation for breach of contract. Evidence at trial concerned a restaurant partnership agreement, alleged concealment of an LLC, the appellant’s investments and work, and wage and income allocations under the agreement. The appellate court affirms both the fraud judgment and $640 contract damages.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/court-of-special-appeals-of-maryland-no-1551-opinion/302612/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/court-of-special-appeals-of-maryland-no-1551-opinion/302612.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"supergirl","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-27","2026-09-19",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":79},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What issues were on appeal in No. 1551?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"The appellant challenged the judgment on the fraud claim and argued the damages for breach of contract were improperly calculated.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What did the partnership agreement require regarding services, contributions, and profits?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"It required full-time services and best efforts, equal contributions of property/services/cash, no salary for services, and equal division of profits and losses.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How did the trial court calculate the breach of contract damages?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"It found the appellant proved $640: the unpaid share of partnership income ($2,640) minus wages already received ($2,000) despite no salary entitlement under the agreement.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},302612,1790138319,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":79,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":140,"read_time":76},962088121634,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","UNREPORTED  \nIN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND  \nNo. 1551  \nSeptember Term, 2014  \nEyler, Deborah S., Nazarian, Friedman,  \nJJ.  \nOpinion by Friedman, J.  \nFiled: October 20, 2015  \nWe are asked to determine whether the trial court properly granted two motions for judgment. Appellant Zhi Feng Yu (“Yu”) argues (1) that the trial court improperly granted appellees’motion for judgment on Yu’s fraud claim and (2) that—although the trial court granted judgment in Yu’s favor on the breach of contract claim—the trial court improperly calculated the amount of damages.  \nBACKGROUND  \nOn January 3, 2011, appellant Yu and appellees Yan Dan Li and Jian Wei Zhu (“Li”and “Zhu,” respectively) entered into a partnership agreement (the “Partnership Agreement”). The Partnership Agreement stated that Yu, Li, and Zhu were partners for the purpose of running a restaurant, Kobe Seafood Hibachi (the “Restaurant”) in Waldorf, Maryland. Additionally, the Partnership Agreement stated: (1) that “[t]he partners shall provide their full-time services and best efforts on behalf of the partnership;”(2) that each partner agrees to contribute equal “property, services, or cash” to the partnership; (3) that“[n]o partner shall receive a salary for services rendered to the partnership;” and (4) that“[t]he profits and losses of the partnership shall be divided by the partners equally.” Months later, after opening the Restaurant, the partnership fell apart. On August 7, 2013, Yu filed a three-count complaint against Li and Zhu in the Circuit Court for Charles County, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and conversion. A trial was held on August 18, 2014.  \nAt trial, Yu was the sole witness to testify. Yu testified that he entered into the Partnership Agreement with Li and Zhu to operate the Restaurant. Li and Zhu’s wife,  \nhowever, had—prior to the signing of the Partnership Agreement—already filed articles of organization for an LLC with a name very similar to the Restaurant—Kobe Seafood Hibachi, LLC. Yu was not included in the LLC. Yu testified that he was unaware of the existence of the LLC when he signed the Partnership Agreement, and that neither Li nor Zhu told Yu about the LLC.  \nYu testified that he invested $75,000 in the Restaurant after signing the Partnership Agreement. To prove his investment, Yu submitted into evidence: a receipt from Zhu fora $20,000 payment; an $8,000 check signed by Yu’s wife to Kobe Seafood Hibachi; a $2,200 check signed by Yu to Zhu’s wife; and a receipt from Zhu for a $12,200 payment. Yu testified that he also purchased tables, chairs, food, and utensils for the Restaurant, but that Li and Zhu never provided him with receipts for these purchases. The Restaurant opened on May 18, 2011.  \nYu testified that he worked at the Restaurant full time, managing the kitchen. While working at the Restaurant, Yu, a New York resident, lived in Li’s basement.  \nThe partners’ relationship soured almost immediately. Yu testified that on September 5, 2011, Li and Zhu called the police on him, alleging that Yu had stolen food. Yu was not arrested and the police did not take a report. Following that incident, however, Yu left the Restaurant. Yu testified that he returned to the Restaurant the next day, but found that the locks had been changed. Additionally, he testified that Li asked him to move out of her basement.  \nYu also testified about his income from the Restaurant. He stated that he was paid $2,000 total for his work, and produced two paystubs for $1,000 each. Yu also introduced a K-1 partnership tax form from 2011, which stated that Yu’s share of the partnership income was $2,640 .  \nAt the close of Yu’s case, Li and Zhu moved for judgment on all three counts. The trial court granted Li and Zhu’s motion on the fraud and conversion counts, finding no evidence of either fraud or conversion.1 The trial court, however, denied the motion for judgment on the breach of contract claim. Li and Zhu immediately rested their case and moved","cbCaiog201PQXX1z","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiog201PQXX1z","pdf",80346,8,"English","# Background\n## Partnership Agreement and Claims\n## Trial Evidence and Motions\n# Discussion\n## Motion for Judgment Standards\n## Fraud","[{\"question\":\"What issues were on appeal in No. 1551?\",\"answer\":\"The appellant challenged the judgment on the fraud claim and argued the damages for breach of contract were improperly calculated.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the partnership agreement require regarding services, contributions, and profits?\",\"answer\":\"It required full-time services and best efforts, equal contributions of property/services/cash, no salary for services, and equal division of profits and losses.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the trial court calculate the breach of contract damages?\",\"answer\":\"It found the appellant proved $640: the unpaid share of partnership income ($2,640) minus wages already received ($2,000) despite no salary entitlement under the agreement.\"}]","Court of Special Appeals of Maryland - No. 1551 - Opinion | PDF",1789794546]