Case Title: NEIL M. WEISS; SAM JAY WEISS; and STAN L. WEISS, in their capacities as Limited Partners of the Weiss Limited Partnership V. MELVIN J. WEISS and JOHANNA WEISS RICHARDS and MORRIS WEISS

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-07-0117

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2008-03-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
NEIL M. WEISS; SAM JAY WEISS; and STAN L. WEISS, in their capacities as Limited Partners of the Weiss Limited Partnership V. MELVIN J. WEISS and JOHANNA WEISS RICHARDS and MORRIS WEISS2008 WY 30178 P.3d 1091Case Number: S-07-0117Decided: 03/20/2008
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2007

 
 
NEIL M. 
WEISS; SAM JAY WEISS; and STAN L. WEISS, in their capacities as Limited Partners 
of the Weiss Limited 
Partnership,Appellants(Defendants),v.MELVIN J. 
WEISS,Appellee(Plaintiff),andJOHANNA WEISS RICHARDS 
and MORRIS WEISS,Appellees(Defendants).

 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofSweetwaterCounty

The 
Honorable Nena James, Judge

 
 

Representing 
Appellants:

C. M. Aron 
of Aron and Hennig, LLP, Laramie, Wyoming.

 
 

Representing 
Appellees:

Marvin 
L. Tyler of Bussart, West & Tyler, P.C., Rock Springs, Wyoming, for Appellee 
Johanna Weiss Richards; and Dale W. Cottam and Lindsay A. Woznick of Hirst & 
Applegate, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming, for Appellee Melvin J. Weiss; and Roger 
Fransen of Hickey & Evans, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming, for Appellee Morris 
Weiss.  Argument by Messrs. Cottam, 
Fransen, and Tyler.

 
 
Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, 
JJ.

 
 

HILL, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Appellants, Neil 
M. Weiss, Sam Jay Weiss, and Stan L. Weiss (hereafter "Appellants") seek review 
of an order of the district court entitled "Final Order Approving Plan for 
Winding Up and Distribution of the Assets of the Weiss Limited 
Partnership."  Appellees, Melvin J. 
Weiss, Morris Weiss, and Johanna Weiss Richards (hereafter "Appellees") contend 
that the district court's order should be affirmed as the only practical 
solution to what has been an insoluble problem for this family.  Appellants contend that the General 
Partner is also a party, but no brief was filed by the General Partner.  The Receiver, who was appointed by the 
district court on July 14, 2006, to manage the partnership, in the absence of 
the six partners' ability to reach any sort of agreement about managing the 
partnership, is not a party to these proceedings.  The Weiss Limited Partnership was 
included in the caption of this case in the district court and was represented 
by counsel throughout the proceedings below.  However, it does not appear in the 
caption of this appeal, and it has made no appearance in this Court.  We will affirm the district court's 
order.

 
 
ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]      Appellants raise 
these issues:

 
 
I.          
Whether a district court can distribute partnership assets in a manner 
contrary to the partnership agreement.

 
 
II.         
Where, as part of a plan for dissolution in accordance with the 
Partnership Agreement, the General Partner resolves to make a liquidating 
distribution, in kind, to the withdrawing limited partner, does the district 
court have authority to "enjoin" the plan and resolution without findings and 
evidence to support the injunction.

 
 
Appellees 
Melvin J. Weiss and Morris Weiss raise these issues:

 
 
I.          
Does Wyoming law allow a district court, sitting in equity, to distribute 
the assets of a dissolved limited partnership in accordance with equitable 
principles and in the most efficient and economical fashion in order to avoid a 
wasting of assets and additional delay and cost to the 
parties?

 
 
II.         
May a district court, presiding over the judicial dissolution of a 
limited partnership in which the existence of the general partner is in dispute, 
enjoin an effort by less than the majority of the limited partners to distribute 
assets of the limited partnership without the agreement of the other limited 
partners?

 
 
Appellee 
Johanna Weiss Richards submitted a separate brief but she essentially joins in 
the issues raised by the other Appellees as set out above.

 
 
FACTS 
AND PROCEEDINGS

 
 
[¶3]      A logical point 
of embarkation here is to recognize that the six limited partners named above 
each own a 1/6th interest in the limited partnership.  The only significant asset of the 
partnership is a parcel of real property approximately 66 acres in size.  It consists of mostly undeveloped land 
in Rock 
Springs.  
Harry Weiss, the father of the parties to this appeal, first created a 
Trust dated May 21, 1982.  Although 
we do not know much about that Trust, we do know that the real property at issue 
here was an asset of that Trust, and Harry Weiss was the Trustee of that 
Trust.  Harry Weiss also created the 
Weiss Limited Partnership on December 29, 1982, and he acted as the General 
Partner during his lifetime.  His 
six children were limited partners in that business organization.  Since the death of Harry Weiss on 
December 23, 2001, the parties have been unable to agree on how to manage the 
partnership or what to do with the assets of the partnership.  Although Morris Weiss attempted to act 
as "General Partner" for a time, his actions in that role were one of the 
circumstances that precipitated this litigation.

 
 
[¶4]      This litigation 
was initiated on April 11, 2005, by Melvin J. Weiss as an "Application for 
Judicial Dissolution and Winding Up of Limited Partnership and Complaint for 
Damages and Accounting."  That 
pleading alleged that Morris Weiss had failed to properly manage the partnership 
and that he had actively frustrated the wishes of all other partners to 
liquidate and distribute the partnership assets.  A request to appoint a Receiver was also 
made by Melvin Weiss and Johanna Weiss Richards. 

 
 
[¶5]      On March 28, 
2006, a pleading entitled "Motion of Defendant Weiss Limited Partnership to 
Dismiss on Grounds of Mootness and Lack of Jurisdiction and Opposition to Motion 
for Appointment of Receiver" was filed on behalf of the partnership created by 
Harry Weiss, the Trust created by Harry Weiss (as successor General Partner to 
Harry Weiss), and it was signed by the same attorney who now represents the 
Appellants herein.  It alleged that 
the Trust was the General Partner now that Harris Weiss was dead, and that the 
General Partner was empowered to sell the assets of the partnership and 
otherwise conduct the business of the partnership.  It went on to provide that the General 
Partner would make a liquidating distribution to Morris Weiss of the buildings 
and ground on which his business was located, that the remainder of the real 
estate would be sold and the proceeds distributed to the other partners, and 
that any disagreements among the partners were required to be resolved by 
arbitration.  Paragraph 21 of the 
partnership provided: "If any controversy or claim arising out of this Limited 
Partnership Agreement cannot be resolved by the partners, it shall be settled by 
arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association 
then in effect, and judgment on the award may be entered in any court having 
proper jurisdiction."

 
 
[¶6]      On July 14, 2006, 
the district court entered an order appointing the Receiver.  That order recited that Melvin Weiss and 
Johanna Weiss Richards had filed a motion for the appointment of a Receiver and 
that a hearing was held on that motion.  
The order spelled out the duties of the Receiver and relieved Morris 
Weiss as the manager of the Limited Partnership.  A point of contention in this appeal, 
for the Appellants, is the district court's further order that the "liquidating 
distribution" to Morris Weiss was enjoined.  There is little, if any, documentation 
of the pleadings leading up to that order in the record on appeal, and the 
hearing was either not reported or not transcribed and is not included in the 
record on appeal.  However, this 
order was the document that governed the management of the Weiss Limited 
Partnership until the entry of the district court's "final order," which is set 
out in detail below.  No challenge 
was made to this order at the time it was entered.  Appellants challenge aspects of it in 
this appeal, but in both the brief and oral argument, the Appellants argue as 
their primary focus that the district court's distribution is erroneous and that 
the only correct distribution is to the limited partners as tenants in 
common.  The Receiver has been in 
place for some time and has managed the partnership during that time (and has 
continued to do so during the pendency of this appeal) and that can not, as a 
practical matter, be undone in the context of this appeal as it is presented to 
the Court in the parties' papers.

 
 
[¶7]      Melvin Weiss 
amended his application for dissolution of the limited partnership on October 
13, 2006.  That application was, in 
large part, a repeat of his original but it added a claim for breach of contract 
on the part of Morris, Stan, Sam, and Neil for their failure to abide by the 
partners' original agreement for the dissolution of the partnership.  On October 16, 2006, Melvin asked the 
district court to order mediation, which the district court did.  However, that mediation apparently was 
not productive, although the record does not tell us very much about that 
process.

 
 
[¶8]      On January 10, 
2007, Melvin Weiss, Morris Weiss, and Johanna Weiss Richards filed a "Joint 
Motion of Melvin Weiss, Morris Weiss and Johanna Weiss Richards for Approval of 
Plan for Winding Up and Distribution of the Assets of the Weiss Limited 
Partnership."

 
 
[¶9]      All parties 
agree, although for different reasons, that the resolution of this case must be 
found in the Partnership Agreement, the law applicable to the dissolution of 
partnership agreements such as the one at issue here, and the circumstances in 
which these six siblings find themselves, i.e., in a state of strong, 
antagonistic, and quarrelsome disagreement which they have been unable to 
resolve for over six years now.  The 
Appellants contend that the Partnership Agreement, in combination with the 
governing statutes, will allow only one result, which is that the entire 
property must be sold and the proceeds distributed equally to the partners.  However, Appellee Morris Weiss continues 
to operate the family business which was passed down to him from his father and 
which is located on the real property at issue.  His brother Melvin Weiss has joined with 
him in an endeavor to preserve Morris's ability to continue to operate the 
business in situ.  The record 
indicates that Morris could not economically relocate the business to a new 
location.  As is evident from the 
above circumstance, Morris Weiss still lives in Rock Springs.  Morris's sister Johanna Weiss Richards 
also still lives in Rock Springs and wants to keep her 1/6th share of the real property.  The other four siblings live in other 
states.

 
 
[¶10]   The district court made these 
findings in its "Final Order Approving Plan for Winding Up and Distribution of 
the Assets of the Weiss Limited Partnership:"

 
 
            
1.  It is not reasonably practicable for the partnership to 
carry on its business and there has been an application by Melvin Weiss for a 
judicial dissolution and winding up of the limited 
partnership.

 
 
            
2.  The Court has authority to wind up the limited 
partnership's affairs upon application of any partner or legal representative or 
assignee.

 
 
            
3.  Compliance with the terms of the parties' Partnership 
Agreement would require that the partnership property be distributed to the 
Limited Partners as tenants in common.

 
 
            
4.  Such distribution would not completely resolve the issues 
between the parties, in that it is likely the Limited Partners would seek to 
partition the property and the result would be inefficient and wasteful of the 
parties' and the Court's resources.

 
 
            
5.  In addition to issues related to distribution of the 
partnership property, Melvin Weiss and Morris Weiss have brought claims against 
the partnership for money damages, which claims will be withdrawn if the plan 
for winding up and distribution of the partnership assets is approved by the 
Court.

 
 
            
6.  The distribution of 11-acre parcels to each partner results 
in a division that gives fair value to each of the limited partners, as long as 
a proportionate share of "usable" and "unusable" acres is included in each 
parcel.1

 
 
            
7.  That portion of the Plan for Winding Up and Distribution of 
the Assets of Weiss Limited Partnership (hereinafter "Plan") that provides for a 
22-acre parcel to be set over to Melvin Weiss and Morris Weiss constitutes a 
waiver by them of their individual rights to receive separate 11-acre parcels 
and is construed by the Court to be a consent to the proposed 
distribution.

 
 
            
8.  The Court concludes that distribution of four 11-acre 
parcels to Johanna Weiss Richards, Stan L. Weiss, Sam Jay Weiss and Neil M. 
Weiss and one 22-acre parcel to Melvin Weiss and Morris Weiss in accordance with 
the Plan constitutes a fair and equitable method for winding up and for 
distribution of the assets of the Weiss Limited Partnership and is consistent 
with the tenor of the Partnership Agreement.

 
 
            
9.  The distribution ordered herein is not a sale of the 
affected property for any purpose, but is a partition of the partnership 
property and a distribution in kind made for the purpose of winding up, 
distribution of the assets and termination of the Weiss Limited 
Partnership.

 
 
            
10.  That although a supplemental decree to implement the 
setting over of specific parcels to the parties as described herein will be 
necessary after a formal survey is completed and a description of each parcel to 
be distributed becomes available, this order constitutes a final judgment and 
disposes of all disputed issues raised by the pleadings in this 
case.

 
 
            
11.  That continuation of the receivership is necessary to 
accomplish the winding up and distribution of partnership 
assets.

 
 
NOW, 
THERFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Weiss Limited Partnership be, and it is 
hereby judicially dissolved, and the winding up of its business and distribution 
of its assets shall be accomplished as set forth herein.

 
 
            
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Morris Weiss's claims for an equitable 
accounting and distribution of the partnership assets are 
granted.

 
 
IT IS 
FURTHER ORDERED that all remaining claims asserted by Melvin Weiss and Morris 
Weiss are hereby dismissed in accordance with the terms of the Joint 
Motion.

 
 
IT IS 
FURTHER ORDERED that the business of the Weiss Limited Partnership shall be 
wound up, its assets shall be distributed and its legal existence shall be 
terminated as follows:

 
 
A.  The 
partnership property shall be divided into five parcels, four parcels consisting 
of 11 acres, more or less, and one parcel consisting of 22 acres, more or less, 
with the 22-acre parcel to include lands located in the southeast part of the 
property and to include buildings in which Rock Springs Hide and Fur, In[c]., is 
located, as shown generally on the map identified as Hearing Exhibit 
2.

 
 
B.  The 
Receiver, with the cooperation and assistance of the parties, will obtain and 
pay for a survey necessary to accomplish division of the property as described 
herein and as shown generally on the map identified as Hearing Exhibit 
2.

 
 
C.  The 
22-acre parcel shall be distributed in kind by decree to Melvin Weiss and Morris 
Weiss, or entities nominated by them to receive title on their behalf, as 
tenants in common.  The in-kind 
distribution under this paragraph shall constitute the entire distributive share 
of Melvin Weiss and Morris Weiss in the partnership property and neither of them 
shall be entitled to receive any interest in any of the other 
parcels.

 
 
D.  The 
11-acre parcel adjacent to the 22-acre parcel, as shown generally on the map 
identified as Hearing Exhibit 2, shall be distributed in kind by decree to 
Johanna Weiss Richards, or to an entity nominated by her to receive title on her 
behalf.  The in-kind distribution 
under this paragraph shall constitute the entire distributive share of Johanna 
Weiss Richards in the partnership property and she shall not be entitled to 
receive any interest in any of the other parcels.

 
 
E.  Three 
11-acre parcels shall be created out of the remaining 33 acres adjacent to the 
11-acre parcel being distributed to Johanna Weiss Richards, as shown generally 
on the map identified as Hearing Exhibit 2, and shall be distributed in kind by 
decree to Neil Weiss, Stan Weiss, and Sam Weiss, or entities nominated by them 
to receive title on behalf of each of them.  Neil Weiss, Stan Weiss and Sam Weiss may 
waive their right to receive individual 11-acre parcels as provided herein and 
instead elect and consent to receive title to the entire 33-acre parcel as 
tenants in common if they provide written notice to the Court and to the other 
parties not later than 20 days from the date of this Order.  The in-kind distributions under this 
paragraph shall constitute the entire distributive shares of Neil Weiss, Stan 
Weiss and Sam Weiss in the partnership property and none of them shall be 
entitled to receive any interest in any of the other 
parcels.

 
 
F.  All 
partnership costs, fees and expenses, including the Receiver's fees, shall be 
paid out of existing partnership funds.  
If the partnership has funds remaining after payment of all of the 
partnership's obligations, those funds shall be distributed by the Receiver to 
Johanna Weiss Richards, Neil Weiss, Sam Weiss, Melvin Weiss, Morris Weiss and 
Stan Weiss in equal one-sixth shares.

 
 
G.  Upon distribution of the partnership's 
assets and payment of its obligations, the Receiver shall make such filings as 
are necessary to terminate the partnership's legal existence and shall notify 
the Court and the parties of such filings.

 
 
IT IS 
FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction during 
winding up of the partnership and distribution of the partnership assets.  The Receiver is hereby authorized to do 
all things necessary to carry out and give effect to the terms of this Order and 
the Order Appointing George Lemich, Esq., as Receiver of Weiss Limited 
Partnership Assets and may obtain the direction of the Court as to any matter 
related to the partnership, its winding up and the distribution of its assets 
under the terms of this Order by application to the Court and upon notice to the 
parties.

 
 
[¶11]   Hearing Exhibit 2 is an aerial 
photograph that depicts the entire 66-acre parcel and depicts approximately how 
the parcel will be divided among the Weiss siblings.  Hearing Exhibit 1 is an appraisal which 
established that the entire parcel is worth about $1,000,000.00.  There are improvements on the property 
and those improvements do produce income.  
However, the appraisal establishes that the improvements are decrepit and 
ramshackle and do not add value to the parcel.  Indeed, it is possible that the 
buildings on the parcel detract from what the parcel's value would be if they 
were not there.

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
Is the 
District Court's Order an Appealable Order

 
 
[¶12]   Appellants suggest that, although 
they do not support their suggestion with cogent argument or pertinent 
authority, the district court's order, although captioned as a "final order," is 
not really final because additional proceedings in the district court are almost 
certain to be required before this case is, at last, resolved.  Appellees are dismissive of that 
contention, relying on W.R.A.P. 1.05(e)(2) for their proposition.  We set out W.R.A.P. 1.05 in its entirety 
below, because there are several possibilities as to why the district court's 
order is "appealable," even though it might not necessarily be "final."  There are some areas of the law where 
"finality" can be elusive.  Divorce 
is one such area, and according to the parties' briefs and arguments, the 
simplicity and economy of a divorce might have been a welcome relief to these 
parties.  W.R.A.P. 1.05 
provides:

 
 
Rule 
1.05 Appealable order defined.

 
 
            
An appealable order is:

            
(a)  An order affecting a substantial right in an action, when 
such order, in effect, determines the action and prevents a judgment; 
or

            
(b)  An order affecting a substantial right made in a special 
proceeding; or

            
(c)  An order made upon a summary application in an action 
after judgment; or

            
(d)  An order, including a conditional order, granting a new 
trial on the grounds stated in  Rule 
59(a)(4) and (5), Wyo. R. Civ. P.; if an appeal is taken from such an order, the 
judgment shall remain final and in effect for the purposes of appeal by another 
party; or

            
(e)  Interlocutory orders and decrees of the district courts 
which:

                        
(1)  Grant, continue, or modify injunctions, or dissolve 
injunctions, or refuse to dissolve or modify injunctions; 
or

                        
(2)  Appoint receivers, or issue orders to wind up 
receiverships, or to take steps to accomplish the purposes thereof, such as 
directing sales or other disposition of property.

 
 
[¶13]   We think that Appellees' reliance 
on Rule 1.05(e)(2) is plausible, as would be a contention that the disputed 
order is appealable under Rule 1.05(a) or (b).  We conclude that is unnecessary for us 
to further refine our analysis of what the proper basis, or bases, is for this 
appeal, because the parties have not thoroughly briefed or argued those 
matters.  We are satisfied that the 
district court's order is appealable and, moreover, it is as "final" an order as 
could be fashioned in this case without causing gross diseconomies of effort to 
the parties, to the district court, and to this Court.

 
 
Do the 
Partnership Agreement and the Governing Statutes Prohibit the Trial Court's 
Order

 
 
[¶14]   It is undisputed in the briefs, and 
it was undisputed at oral argument, that the Appellants and the Appellees are 
unable to decide on how to distribute the partnership assets.  However, it is equally apparent that it 
is the express will of all partners that the partnership be dissolved and that 
its assets be equally divided among them.  
Such a circumstance is recognized as a proper basis for dissolution of a 
partnership.  J. William Callison, 
Maureen A. Sullivan, Partnership Law and 
Practice, General and Limited Partnerships §16:5 (Thomson-West 
2004).

 
 
[¶15]   The parties are in agreement that 
there are no factual disputes in this case.  This case most closely resembles a 
summary judgment case wherein the parties have agreed that there are no genuine 
issues of material fact and that one party, or the other, is entitled to 
judgment as a matter of law.  The 
district court's construction of the Partnership Agreement and its construction 
of the governing statutes, in light of the circumstances of that agreement and 
the circumstances of this case, are questions of law that we review de novo.  See generally Warnick v. Warnick, 2003 WY 113, 76 P.3d 316 (Wyo. 2003).

 
 
[¶16]   The Appellants assert that 
paragraph 15 of the Partnership Agreement must govern.  It provides:

 
 
            
15.  On termination of the partnership, all of the partners 
(general and limited), or such partners and the personal representative or 
conservator of any deceased or insane partner, shall become tenants in common of 
the partnership assets.  Any person 
who was a general partner at the time of the termination shall be liable for 
partnership debts to same extent as he was at the time of the termination.  To the extent a general partner 
(directly or indirectly) pays such a liability, he shall have a right to 
reimbursement out of all property of the partnership at the time of termination, 
and shall have a lien on all property of the partnership at the time of 
termination to secure his right to reimbursement for payment of any such 
debts.

 
 
[¶17]   The Partnership Agreement also 
provided that among its purposes were to involve the Weiss siblings in the 
management of the partnership's assets and to provide the children with their 
"separate estates."   However 
well-intentioned Harry Weiss's ideas for a family business were, we are not 
inclined to disagree with the district court's conclusion that as things stand, 
"it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in conformity with 
the partnership agreement."  Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 17-14-902 (LexisNexis 2007); also see Callison & Sullivan, 
Partnership Law and Practice, General and 
Limited Partnerships, supra, 
§16:19 (judicial winding up and appointment of receiver proper when equitable, 
especially when dissension among the partners created a risk of loss in the 
value of partnership assets); 59A Am.Jur.2d Partnership § 911 (2003) (dissolution of 
limited partnership is an equitable matter).

 
 
[¶18]   The Appellants further contend that 
they may not be compelled by the district court to receive their interest in any 
form other than cash, and may not be compelled to take it in kind.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 17-14-705 (LexisNexis 
2007) provides:

 
 
Except 
as provided in writing in the partnership agreement, a partner, regardless of 
the nature of his contribution, has no right to demand and receive any 
distribution from a limited partnership in any form other than cash.  Except as provided in writing in the 
partnership agreement, a partner may not be compelled to accept a distribution 
of any asset in kind from a limited partnership to the extent that the 
percentage of the asset distributed to him exceeds a percentage of that asset 
which is equal to the percentage in which he shares in distributions from the 
limited partnership.

 
 
However, 
this statute does not support the Appellants' argument.  See Callison & Sullivan, Partnership Law and Practice, General and 
Limited Partnerships, supra, 
§25:5.  Appellants have failed to 
state a sound basis for their objections to distribution of the real estate in 
kind, in equal-sized and equal-value shares, other than that it is not the 
distribution that they preferred.

 
 
[¶19]   The Appellants assert that the 
Partnership Agreement itself, when read in light of the governing statutes, 
mandates that the only legally acceptable resolution of this case is the sale of 
all of the assets of the partnership (i.e., the real property) and distributing 
the cash from the proceeds of that sale to the partners in equal amounts.  We do not agree that the Partnership 
Agreement must be read so narrowly or that the agreement, in combination with 
the statutes, requires that result.  
Paragraph 5 of the Partnership Agreement provides:

 
 
            
5.  The term of existence of the partnership is the period 
beginning at formation and ending upon the death of the survivor of Harry Weiss 
and any additional general partners admitted to the partnership pursuant to 
Section 12 hereof; provided, however, that the partnership shall not be 
dissolved if all remaining partners elect to continue the partnership in 
accordance with Wyoming Stat. Ann. § 17-14-901 or any successor 
provision.

 
 
[¶20]   No other general partners were ever 
admitted to the partnership.  Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 17-14-901 (LexisNexis 2007) provides:

 
 
(a)  A 
limited partnership is dissolved and its affairs shall be wound up upon the 
happening of the first to occur of the following:

                        
(i)  At the time specified in the certificate of limited 
partnership;

                        
(ii)  Upon the happening of events specified in writing in the 
partnership agreement;

                        
(iii)  Written consent of all partners;

                        
(iv)  Repealed by Laws 1999, ch. 145, § 
2.

                        
(v)  Entry of a decree of judicial dissolution under W.S. 
17-14-902;

                        
(vi)  A vote to dissolve by all of the limited partners, or a 
number or percentage of limited partners specified in the partnership agreement, 
within ninety (90) days after an event of withdrawal of the last remaining 
general partner;  
or

                        
(vii)  The failure of the limited partners to admit or appoint 
another general partner within ninety (90) days after an event of withdrawal of 
the last remaining general partner.

 
 
[¶21]   Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 17-14-902 
provides:

 
 
On 
application by or for a partner the district court may decree dissolution of a 
limited partnership whenever it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the 
business in conformity with the partnership agreement.

 

[¶22]   Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 17-14-903 and 
17-14-904 (LexisNexis 2007) authorize the district court to wind up a limited 
partnership's affairs and distribute the assets to the limited partners.  Upon consideration of the unique 
circumstances outlined above, we conclude that the district court did not err in 
entering the order which is the subject of this appeal.

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶23]   The district court's order is 
affirmed and this matter is remanded to the district court for such further 
proceedings as may still be necessary to effectuate the district court's 
order.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1The terms 
"usable" and unusable" acreage originated in the appraisal of the property 
obtained by the Receiver.  The 
property included some steep terrain with rocky outcroppings.  Those areas were designated as 
"unusable," although their per-acre value was still $6,500.00 an acre.  The "usable" acreage consisted of less 
steep sloping land and some flatland and was valued at $22,000.00 an 
acre.