William C. Solomon d/b/a Graphic Engineering, appeals from the trial court’s partial grant of summary judgment to W. Harry Barnett, individually,1 in Solomon’s suit for breach of a joint venture agreement. The sole issue is whether the trial court erred in concluding that Barnett individually, as opposed to his corporations, would not be liable for any damages recoverable by Solomon. On review of the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, this Court must determine whether the trial court erred in concluding that no genuine issue of material fact remains and that the party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This requires a de novo review of the evidence. Summary judgment is appropriate when the court, viewing all the facts and evidence and reasonable inferences from those facts in a light most favorable to the non-movant, concludes that the evidence does not create a triable issue as to each essential element of the case. Citations and punctuation omitted. Rubin v. Cello Corp. , 235 Ga. App. 250-251 510 SE2d 541 1998.
So viewed in the light most favorable to Solomon, the evidence was that Barnett, who lived in Georgia, and Solomon, who lived in Missouri, were both involved in purchasing and reselling used printing equipment and had known each other for 25 years. Solomon contends that, at the NEXPO newspaper convention in June 1998, he and Barnett, individually, agreed to “join forces and make some real money.” Solomon acknowledges that no written document was prepared or executed regarding this joint venture.