- 6 -
AND NOW, this 7 day of JULY, 1992, WE FIND
that the business was operated on a partnership
basis; the assets of the business are as set
forth in this opinion. Plaintiff is entitled to
dissolution of the partnership and an accounting.
The profits will be shared equally after the
partners are repaid their contribution as
provided by the act.
Unless an appeal is filed within thirty (30)
days the court will appoint a Master to determine
the asset valuation and disposition of assets.
The State court entered a second opinion on January 6,
1997, after 16 days of hearings, resolving differences
between the brothers over an account of the business that
had been filed by James and excepted to by Darwin (herein-
after the 1997 State court opinion). In the 1997 State
court opinion, the State court determined that James
had made capital contributions to the partnership of
$1,001,558.60, that Darwin had made capital contributions
to the partnership of $2,320, and that the partnership had
$23,311.87 in its bank accounts. The court ordered payment
of the outstanding liabilities of the partnership totaling
$23,335.47. The court also ordered the sale of partnership
equipment at a public auction, with all profits from the
sale to be deposited into the partnership bank account.
The partnership equipment included various pieces of
restaurant equipment, such as a popcorn machine and an ice
cream freezer, and various pieces of agricultural or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011