Opinion ID: 883246
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Issue IV: Findings

Text: Did the District Court err in determining that Joseph and James Fiedler operated the Taylor Ranch Corporation as a part of the partnership? Joseph Fiedler's lengthy argument on this issue is essentially an argument that the District Court erroneously converted this from an action in partition to an action to dissolve a partnership. He has not identified any specific findings which he claims are incorrect, but he argues the District Court erred in determining there was a partnership. We addressed the findings which deal with the inclusion of real property as partnership assets in Issues I and II above. We also affirm the findings of the District Court on this issue as discussed briefly below. Interestingly, in his response to the Preliminary Report of the Special Master, Joseph Fiedler stated: In approximately 1950, Joseph Fiedler, James Fiedler, their brother William ... and their parents ..., commenced conducting a general ranching and farming partnership business on land jointly owned by the family, hereinafter referred to as the Fiedler Ranch ... Upon the death of the brother and parents, Joseph and James became 50-50 partners with all profits to be split evenly. This is but one of the numerous examples in the voluminous record of this action encompassing over ten years of litigation by which Joseph Fiedler has indicated his knowledge and belief that the Fiedler Ranch has been operated as a partnership. Not only has he supported his arguments over the years with information indicative of a partnership between James and Joseph Fiedler, he has also supported them with information indicative of a partnership between all five members of the Fiedler family going as far back as 1950. Substantial evidence supports a finding that the Taylor Ranch Corporation was purchased in 1954 by the partnership with partnership assets derived from the sale of partnership livestock. Based on the Special Master's findings and conclusions, the evidence presented at trial and other contents of the record in this case, the District Court found specifically that James and Joseph Fiedler intended to operate the ranch they inherited, and all additions to it, as a partnership; that there was no intention by them to have any of the property withheld from the partnership; and that the Special Master had relied upon qualified appraisers and sound techniques. Rule 53(e)(2), M.R.Civ.P., states that a trial court sitting without a jury shall accept the master's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. The District Court concluded that the Special Master's report contained nothing which was clearly erroneous. We agree. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the findings above-noted and others not specified herein are indeed supported by substantial evidence. Further, after reviewing the record, we conclude that the District Court has not misapprehended the effect of the evidence, and our review of the record has not left us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. We hold the District Court properly determined that Joseph and James Fiedler operated the Taylor Ranch Corporation as a part of the partnership. Affirmed. TURNAGE, C.J., and HARRISON, NELSON and GRAY, JJ., concur.