With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Ventures § 12 (1969)).” Flowers v. Pope, 937 So.2d 61, 65-66 (Ala.2006). The record does not contain substantial evidence to create a jury question with regard to the existence of a joint venture involving Hyundai. Nothing in the evidence supports a finding of a community of interest. Hyundai never had a joint ownership interest with any of the alleged joint venturers in the property of the Rus-sells or the McLemore group upon the closings on the property. Additionally, Hyundai did not provide financing for the purchase of the property, and it had no risk or expenses with regard to the purchase. Thus, nothing supports a finding of a community of interest involving Hyundai with regard to the acquisition of the property to constitute the project site. Cf. Flowers v. Pope, 937 So.2d at 68 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the record indicates that Hyundai

A: holding that the submission of a defective involuntary joint petition corrected to include only one debtors name at the time of filing and prior to the issuance of the summons was a filing against only one debtor and consequently valid
B: holding evidence insufficient to support conviction when none of the defendants had any proprietary interest nor previous association with the premises and there was no evidence of how long the defendants had been on the premises prior to the arrival of the police
C: holding that a married couple filing a joint return can deduct interest paid on 1 million of acquisition indebtedness
D: holding that there was no community of interest because the alleged joint venturers did not have an equal proprietary interest and only one of the alleged joint venturers bore the risks and paid the expenses
D.