- 29 -
had 50-percent ownership in land. Jean testified that, although
she generally did not discuss business with Melvin, she “just
thought that everything was 50-50" in BBP. Kab testified that,
at the time of Melvin’s death, he believed that Melvin and
Russell shared BBP profits on an equal basis. Todd testified
that he understood that Melvin and Russell had an agreement that
all property was owned equally and income taxes were split
evenly. After Melvin’s death, a dispute arose concerning BBP.
The parties eventually negotiated a settlement agreement
resolving the dispute concerning BBP. In negotiating the
settlement agreement, the goal of the estate’s representatives
was to obtain 50 percent in value of the partnership assets. The
parties stipulated that the grain income was the sole property of
Russell; however, Russell was also required to pay $2 million to
be held in trust for the benefit of the estate. The evidence in
the record indicates that the remaining assets and liabilities of
BBP were split approximately equally between the estate and
Russell. Thus, the evidence generally indicates that each
partner had equal rights to distributions of capital upon
liquidation of BBP.
In addition to the four factors above, we also note that
other evidence bears on the partners’ interests in BBP. For at
least the years 1980 through 1994, BBP reported all partnership
items equally, and a dispute never arose as to the proper
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011