HORNE V. AUNE 121 P.3d 1227 (2005) CASE BRIEF

HORNE V. AUNE

121 P.3d 1227 (2005)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Aune (D) appealed a ruling requiring D to sell his partnership interest in real property to Horne (P), a partner.

FACTS: P and D intended to pursue a family life together. They purchased property as an investment opportunity. Each contributed equally toward the down payment and obtained joint financing for the balance. P, D and P's son moved into the house in August 2002. D refused to pay half the utilities because he believed P and her son consumed more than half. In October, P and D argued during a road trip, and D left P and her son by the side of the road in Port Angeles. On November 4, they signed a written agreement describing their respective rights and obligations for the property. Its states that they 'are equal partners in said property sharing equally in ownership, care, upkeep and title and mortgage obligations including property taxes and property insurance costs.' If either party is lawfully, but unwillingly removed from the property by law enforcement or by invoking a restraining order or any other method, the party remaining in residence will be solely financially responsible for upholding all expense obligations pertaining to the mortgage, taxes, insurance and care and upkeep of the property until the removed party returns and peaceable co-habitation resumes. On December 8, an altercation occurred at the home. During an argument, D pushed P aside and assaulted her son. P obtained a protection order against him. The prosecutor charged D with two counts of fourth degree assault. P has remained in possession of the home and has paid all expenses, including the mortgage, since January 2003. In April 2003, P sent S a letter purporting to nullify the partnership agreement. D did not respond. P sued for a breach of partnership agreement; breach of fiduciary duty; accounting, dissolution, and winding up of partnership; and conversion/replevin. D requested a formal accounting, followed by a judgment for his share of the partnership property. The court found the written partnership agreement valid and enforceable and decided that P failed to prove breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, or conversion. The court valued the property at $335,000, with a mortgage balance of $235,000. It concluded that ach party would receive 50 percent of the gross equity and/or net proceeds on its sale. In lieu of a public sale, the partnership could be wound up by either party buying out the other's interest for $50,000 within 45 days. Both wanted to buy. The court ordered P to buy D's partnership interest for $50,000. The court ordered D to quitclaim his interest to P in exchange for the cash payment and a release from his mortgage obligation. Both parties appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner