Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Horne v. Aune

Court of Appeals of Washington
121 P.3d 1227 (2005)


Facts

In contemplation of a family life together, Cecilia Horne (plaintiff) and Steven Aune (defendant) purchased a home as tenants in common. Horne and Aune were experienced real-estate investors, viewed the property as an investment opportunity, and contributed equally to the down payment. Horne’s 12-year-old son, William, also moved into the house. Shortly thereafter, the relationship between and Horne and Aune soured. Horne and Aune entered into a written partnership agreement drafted by Horne, describing their respective rights and obligations for the property. The agreement provided in part that if either party was lawfully removed from the property by law enforcement or was the subject of a restraining order, the party remaining in the residence was solely financially responsible for the mortgage, taxes, insurance, and care and upkeep of the home. Subsequently, an altercation between Aune, Horne, and William resulted in Aune leaving the residence for approximately one week. During that time, Horne obtained a restraining order against Aune, and Aune was charged with two counts of assault. Horne remained in possession of the home and paid all of the household expenses. Horne filed suit against Aune, claiming that the partnership could no longer function, necessitating a winding up and dissolution. Additionally, Horne requested that the home be sold and that Horne be permitted to purchase Aune’s interest in the property. The house was appraised at $335,000. Aune argued that the Revised Uniform Partnership Act (RUPA) required the house to be sold via a public sale. The trial court found the partnership agreement to be valid and enforceable, and valued the property at $335,000 with a mortgage balance of $235,000. The trial court ordered Horne to buy Aune’s interest for $50,000, and ordered Aune to quitclaim his interest in the property to Horne. Horne and Aune cross-appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Houghton, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.