McCORMICK V. BREVIG
96 P.3d 697 (2004)
NATURE OF THE CASE: McCormick (P), sister, sought a partnership accounting and dissolution of a family farming business. Brevig (D), brother, alleged he would have received the partnership property as trust beneficiary if the trust had been validly formed, brought fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims against P and professional negligence claims against accountants. Cross appeals were taken from the district court's grant of partial summary judgment for accountants and P. The Supreme Court, 294 Mont. 144, 980 P.2d 603, affirmed in part and reversed in part. On remand, the court ordered sale of P's interest to D and ordered appraisal. This appeal resulted.
FACTS: Father and D owned the ranch in equal shares, and began operating the ranch as Brevig Land, Live & Lumber, a partnership. P lived on the ranch and assisted in ranch operations from 1975 until 1981. During hard times P left the ranch to work as an oil and gas 'landman.' Charles and D sought to refinance the farm debt in the amount of $422,000 with the Federal Land Bank. The bank required P to sign the mortgage which was secured by the ranch real estate. P's income as a landman became committed to assist in repayment of the ranch debt. P contributed all of her income, less expenses, to the support of the ranch operation. In 1983, P closed her personal bank account and began to deposit all of her income into the partnership bank account. After she married in 1986, P made payments directly to the banks for the ranch obligations rather than to deposit the money in the ranch operating account. P also made direct payments for taxes and insurance. Charles and P and D were appointed co-personal representatives. P and D each received one-half of Charles' estate, which consisted of his 50 percent interest in the ranch and Partnership. D owned 75 percent of the ranch assets, and P 25 percent. A written partnership agreement was thereafter executed reflecting their respective 75/25 percent interests in the Partnership. Except for these ownership percentages, the written agreement was identical to the one executed between Charles and D in 1978. P made financial contributions to the new Partnership. She also maintained the Partnership's books and records. D assumed responsibility for the day-to-day affairs of the ranch. P obtained an additional 25 percent in the Partnership. D received a capital credit of approximately $60,000. From 1984 to 1993, Joan was listed as a 50/50 partner on all the tax returns for the Partnership. Disagreements caused the relationships to deteriorate. They began looking for ways to dissolve the Partnership. The litigation began in 1995 when P brought this action against her brother, D, and their Partnership, Brevig Land Live and Lumber ('the Partnership'), seeking a Partnership accounting and dissolution. D counterclaimed for fraud, deceit, negligent misrepresentation, and to quiet title. He also filed a third-party complaint against several accounting defendants for professional negligence and against his sister for breach of fiduciary duty. All the parties moved for partial summary judgment. P's motion for partial summary judgment was granted and D were denied. The court dismissed D's claims for fraud, deceit, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty against P. The accounting defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted. The parties appealed. P's entry of summary judgment was affirmed but the court concluded that it was error as to the accounting defendants, and therefore reversed and remanded for further proceedings. D settled his claims with the accounting defendants. A bench trial was held and the District Court dissolved the Partnership, and ordering its business wound up, pending a hearing before a special master and a determination of the proper method for dissolution. A judicial dissolution of the Partnership was warranted. The court ordered P to sell her interest in the Partnership to her brother following an appraisal and determination of the value of her share. The District Court eventually fixed a price of $1,107,672. P appeals from the District Court's accounting and order requiring her to sell her interest in the Partnership to D, and D cross-appeals from the court's determination regarding certain Partnership assets, as well as from an evidentiary ruling made at trial.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment