Prentiss v. Sheffel case brief summary
513 P.2d 949 (1973)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiffs brought an action seeking dissolution of the parties' partnership on the grounds that defendant had been derelict in his partnership duties, and that he had failed to contribute the balance of his proportionate share of the operating losses incurred by the partnership property. Defendant counterclaimed seeking a winding up of the partnership and the appointment of a receiver, contending that his rights as a partner were violated in that he had been wrongfully excluded from the partnership. The receiver and the trial court proceeded with the liquidation and sale of the partnership property, and plaintiffs were the high bidders. The trial court confirmed the sale of the partnership property to plaintiffs, and defendant appealed.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the trial court's confirmation of a judicial sale of partnership property to plaintiffs in their action for dissolution of the parties' partnership.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations and Business Associations Law
513 P.2d 949 (1973)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant partner appealed the decision
of a trial court (Arizona), which confirmed the judicial sale of
partnership property to plaintiff partners in the plaintiffs' action
for dissolution of the parties' partnership.CASE FACTS
Plaintiffs brought an action seeking dissolution of the parties' partnership on the grounds that defendant had been derelict in his partnership duties, and that he had failed to contribute the balance of his proportionate share of the operating losses incurred by the partnership property. Defendant counterclaimed seeking a winding up of the partnership and the appointment of a receiver, contending that his rights as a partner were violated in that he had been wrongfully excluded from the partnership. The receiver and the trial court proceeded with the liquidation and sale of the partnership property, and plaintiffs were the high bidders. The trial court confirmed the sale of the partnership property to plaintiffs, and defendant appealed.
DISCUSSION
- The court affirmed, concluding that plaintiffs were allowed to purchase the partnership and exclude defendant where there was no indication that such exclusion was done for the wrongful purpose of obtaining the partnership assets in bad faith.
- The court held that defendant failed to demonstrate how he was injured by the participation of the plaintiffs in the judicial sale.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the trial court's confirmation of a judicial sale of partnership property to plaintiffs in their action for dissolution of the parties' partnership.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations and Business Associations Law
No comments:
Post a Comment