Robertson v. Jacobs Cattle Co.
285 Neb. 859, 830 N.W.2d 191 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where a court finds that the conduct of one or more partners constitutes grounds for both judicial dissociation and judicial dissolution under the Uniform Partnership Act, the court has the discretion to order either remedy and is not required to dissolve the partnership.
Facts:
- Jacobs Cattle Company is a family partnership formed in 1979 to own and rent out approximately 1,525 acres of agricultural land in Nebraska.
- The 1997 partnership agreement gave Ardith Jacobs management authority and provided that profits and losses would be allocated based on a voting structure where Ardith and her son Dennis Jacobs held more votes than the other four partners.
- Several partners, including Patricia Robertson, James Robertson, Duane Jacobs, and Carolyn Jacobs, rented parcels of land from the partnership.
- Significant acrimony developed among the partners, leading to a cessation of partnership meetings after January 2005.
- Ardith Jacobs, acting as manager, unilaterally terminated the services of the partnership's longtime accountant and attorney, who had been agreeable to all partners.
- In March 2005, Dennis Jacobs was involved in a physical altercation with his sister, partner Patricia Robertson, which resulted in Dennis pleading no contest to criminal assault charges.
- Several partners, including Patricia, James, Duane, and Carolyn, failed to pay their rent to the partnership in a timely manner.
- Ardith initiated a lawsuit on behalf of the partnership against Patricia and James Robertson for unpaid rent.
Procedural Posture:
- James Robertson, Patricia Robertson, Duane Jacobs, and Carolyn Jacobs (appellants) filed an amended complaint in the District Court for Valley County, seeking judicial dissolution of the Jacobs Cattle Company partnership.
- The partnership, Ardith Jacobs, and Dennis Jacobs (appellees) filed an amended answer and counterclaim, asserting that judicial dissociation of the appellants, not dissolution, was the appropriate remedy.
- Following a bench trial, the district court entered an interlocutory order on September 20, 2011, denying the petition for dissolution but ordering the judicial dissociation (expulsion) of the four appellants.
- The district court ruled that the date of dissociation for valuing the partnership's assets was September 20, 2011, the date of its order.
- After subsequent proceedings to determine the buyout price, the court entered a final judgment approving a calculation based on each appellant's capital account percentage (5.33%) and set the interest rate at the statutory judgment rate.
- The four dissociated partners appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, and the remaining partners and the partnership filed a cross-appeal challenging the valuation date.
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 court have the discretion to order the judicial dissociation of partners and a buyout of their interests as an alternative to dissolving the entire partnership when grounds for both remedies exist?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephan, J.
Yes, a court has the discretion to order dissociation instead of dissolution when grounds for both exist. The Uniform Partnership Act of 1998 (RUPA) embodies the 'entity theory' of partnership, which treats the partnership as an entity distinct from its partners, with a primary goal of preventing mandatory dissolution. Where the conduct of partners makes it not reasonably practicable to carry on the business with them, creating grounds for both dissolution (§ 67-439(5)(b)) and dissociation (§ 67-431(5)(c)), forcing dissolution would contradict RUPA's purpose. Therefore, a court may exercise its discretion to order dissociation by judicial expulsion, allowing the viable business to continue with the remaining partners. The court affirmed the dissociation but reversed and remanded on the buyout calculation, holding that: (1) the 'date of dissociation' for valuation purposes is the date of the court's judicial order of expulsion, not the earlier date of the wrongful conduct; (2) the trial court erred by refusing to consider evidence on how hypothetical profits from asset liquidation should be allocated under the partnership agreement; and (3) the correct interest rate on the buyout amount is specified by the partnership act, not the general judgment interest rate.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the entity theory of partnership law under RUPA, clarifying that dissolution is a discretionary, not a mandatory, remedy for partnership deadlock or misconduct. It establishes that courts have the equitable power to preserve a viable business by expelling partners rather than liquidating the entire enterprise. This holding provides stability for partnerships by favoring the continuation of the business, which is a significant departure from the old aggregate theory where a partner's departure often forced dissolution. The decision gives clear guidance that dissociation is a powerful alternative remedy for intractable partner disputes.
