Autohut was a used car business located in Englewood, Colorado. The business sold cars on a consignment basis and was not formed as a separate legal entity. Instead, Padilla, Mr. Lowell Andrews, and the Debtor in this case formed a partnership to run Autohut. This partnership agreement was not written. Autohut operated by "contacting individuals who were selling their cars on Craigslist" and offering "to sell their vehicles on consignment basis from Autohut's lot." The plaintiff, Chenaille, was a customer of Autohut who attempted to purchase a truck in 2011 from the business. The plaintiff customer paid the negotiated price to the business but never received the title to the truck. When the plaintiff returned to Autohut to discuss his receiving of the title for the truck, the business had shut down and the lot was empty. Plaintiff customer contacted the police and learned that many previous customers of Autohut had a similar experience. The Colorado Motor Vehicle Dealer Board shut down Autohut's business and revoked its business license, but no charges were brought against Autohut or its owners. In the meantime, the original owner of the truck, a Mr. Jarred Johnson, had reported the vehicle as stolen, as he still retained the original title to the truck before he agreed to let Autohut sell the truck for him on the business's lot. When Mr. Johnson learned of the plaintiff's possession of the truck, he sued the plaintiff for return of the vehicle. The state court awarded ownership of the truck to Mr. Johnson, and the plaintiff was never refunded the money he paid Autohut for the truck. The plaintiff eventually filed suit for the debt owed to him from purchasing the truck. The plaintiff alleged that the debt owed to him met the requirements of embezzlement. How do you think the court ruled? Why? Chenaille v. Palilla (In re Palilla), 493 B.R. 248 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2013).