Frost v. Spencer

218 P.3d 678 (2009)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Frost v. Spencer

Alaska Supreme Court
218 P.3d 678 (2009)

Facts

Cathy Frost (plaintiff) and John Spencer (defendant) were high-school friends. Thereafter, Frost and Spencer were occasionally romantically involved, though they never cohabitated. In approximately 1989, Frost and Spencer started a business together, apparently without executing a written partnership agreement. The business initially provided guided hunting expeditions and then expanded to also offer catered events. Frost and Spencer acquired a lodge to serve as a business location for housing clients before expeditions and for hosting the catered events. The lodge was titled in Spencer’s name because of Frost’s financial complications stemming from a prior business. Frost and Spencer also purchased another lodge from Frost’s parents. During the business, Frost handled all the marketing, food service, and public relations while Spencer performed the hands-on work associated with the expeditions, the properties, and the equipment. By 2003, the professional relationship had soured. Spencer subsequently sued Frost and requested that the trial court dissolve the parties’ partnership interests and divide their jointly acquired real and personal properties. The parties expressly agreed that the trial court should apply domestic-partnership law to resolve the dispute and presented evidence during trial regarding the purchase and use of the real property and equipment during the partnership. Nevertheless, the trial court determined post-trial that business-partnership law should be used to resolve the dispute. Although the trial court permitted the parties to submit written arguments before it rendered a decision, it denied Frost’s request for another evidentiary hearing. Frost appealed and argued that the trial court abused its discretion by applying a different body of substantive law than she anticipated without holding another evidentiary hearing because she would have presented and emphasized different evidence.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership