Giles v. Giles Land Company
47 Kan.App.2d 744, 279 P.3d 139 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may order the judicial dissociation of a partner when that partner's conduct creates an irreparable deterioration of the relationship between partners, making it not reasonably practicable to carry on the business with them. In a family partnership, conduct that destroys trust and communication, including personal threats, is considered conduct relating to the partnership business.
Facts:
- The Giles family, including parents Norman and Dolores and their seven children, operated a family farming partnership, Giles Land Company, L.P.
- Kelly Giles, one of the sons and a general partner, had previously been bought out of another family business after incurring significant debt.
- At a partnership meeting in 2006, Kelly told the other general partners that they would each die, that he would be the 'last man standing' to control the partnership, and later stated that 'paybacks are hell.'
- The relationship between Kelly and the rest of the family deteriorated to a state of complete mutual distrust, requiring all communication to be conducted through attorneys.
- The partnership reached an impasse on business matters, such as a proposal to convert to a limited liability company, which Kelly refused to approve.
- Instead of cooperating with the proposed conversion, Kelly demanded production of all partnership books and records.
Procedural Posture:
- Kelly Giles sued the Giles Land Company, L.P. and his family members in the state trial court, seeking access to partnership records.
- The defendants filed an answer and a counterclaim asking the court to judicially dissociate Kelly from the partnership.
- After a bench trial, the trial court ruled against Kelly on his records claim and granted the defendants' counterclaim, ordering Kelly's dissociation.
- Kelly Giles, as appellant, appealed the trial court's dissociation order to the Kansas Court of Appeals, the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a partner's conduct, including making threats and fostering an atmosphere of complete distrust among family members in a family partnership, constitute conduct 'relating to the partnership business which makes it not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in partnership with the partner' sufficient to justify judicial dissociation under K.S.A. 56a-601(e)(3)?
Opinions:
Majority - Green, J.
Yes. A partner's conduct that results in an irreparable deterioration of the relationship among partners constitutes conduct relating to the partnership business that makes it not reasonably practicable to carry on the business with that partner. The court interpreted the statutory phrase 'relating to the partnership business' broadly, especially within the context of a family partnership where personal relationships and business operations are intertwined. The court found substantial evidence that Kelly's threats, the complete and mutual distrust between him and his family members, and the resulting communication breakdown created an impasse that made it impossible to operate the partnership effectively. Citing precedent from other jurisdictions like Brennan v. Brennan Associates, the court held that an 'irreparable deterioration of a relationship between partners' is a valid basis for dissociation. The court also affirmed the trial court's alternative finding that Kelly's behavior constituted wrongful conduct that adversely and materially affected the partnership under K.S.A. 56a-601(e)(1), as his actions brought the partnership to a 'standstill.'
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the grounds for judicial dissociation under the Revised Uniform Partnership Act are broad and not strictly limited to financial misconduct or direct interference with business operations. It establishes that in closely-held or family partnerships, a partner's conduct that destroys personal relationships to the point of irreparable distrust and non-cooperation can be deemed to 'relate to the partnership business' and make continued association impracticable. The ruling gives partners a legal remedy to expel a partner who creates a toxic and unworkable environment, even if the partnership remains profitable. This precedent is significant for family businesses where interpersonal dynamics are critical to the entity's function.
Unlock the full brief for Giles v. Giles Land Company