G & S Investments v. Belman
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 2
145 Ariz. 258, 700 P.2d 1358 (1984)
G & S Investments (plaintiff) and Thomas Nordale (defendant) were two of four partners in an enterprise to own and operate an apartment building. The partnership agreement stated that in the event of the death or disability of one of the partners, the remaining partners may continue the business, but that if the partners continued the business, they must buy out the departing partner using a formula based on the partner’s capital account and the partnership’s profits. Nordale, who lived in one of the apartments in the building, became erratic and unreliable starting in 1979. Nordale stopped going to work, he threatened the other partners, he sexually solicited an underage tenant in the apartment complex, he refused to pay rent on his apartment, he caused disturbances which led to the loss of at least one tenant, and he insisted on business decisions that caused severe economic loss to the partnership. In 1981, G & S filed suit to dissolve the partnership and buy out Nordale’s interest. The complaint filed by G & S alleged that Nordale had become incapable of performing under the partnership agreement and that his conduct made it impracticable for the other partners to carry on the partnership with him. In February 1982, Nordale passed away, and his estate continued the suit through his personal representative, Fred Belman (defendant). In June 1982, G & S filed a supplemental complaint that invoked their right under the partnership agreement to carry on the partnership and buy out Nordale's interest. Nordale's estate argued that the original filing of the complaint acted as a dissolution of the partnership that required liquidating the partnership and distributing the assets to the partners. The trial court held that G & S had the right to continue the partnership and owed Nordale's estate $4,867.57. The trial court calculated the buy-out amount based on Nordale's capital account, calculated on a cost basis. Nordale’s estate appealed, and G & S cross-appealed to recover attorney's fees.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Howard, J.)
What to do next…
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 724,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
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.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 724,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,600 briefs, keyed to 983 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.