Opinion ID: 881994
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the District Court err by denying a motion to order an accounting and distribution of partnership property?

Text: Frank DeHaan, Inc. (plaintiff/respondent) initiated an action to partition property basically controlled jointly by Frank DeHaan and his brother Henry DeHaan, by virtue of respective family corporations. The property consists of approximately 17,575 deeded acres acquired by the brothers in eight separate purchases over a period of years. The majority of the land was purchased in the name of Henry DeHaan and Frank DeHaan. Several sections (known as Lower Big Pasture and White Place) were purchased in the names of Mae DeHaan and Vera DeHaan (Henry's and Frank's wives). In 1973, Henry and Mae DeHaan deeded their undivided interests in the `DeHaan Ranch' to a family corporation known as Gallatin Madison Ranch Company, Inc. (G.M.R.C.). Mae's interest in Lower Big Pasture and White Place were omitted from the corporation. In 1981, Frank and Vera DeHaan transferred all of their individual interests into a family corporation known as Frank DeHaan, Inc.. The court determined that Frank DeHaan, Inc., Frank DeHaan and his family (hereinafter Frank) were owners and entitled to one-half of the subject property. G.M.R.C., Henry DeHaan, his family and Mae DeHaan (hereinafter Henry) were found to be owners of the other half. No separate distinction was granted Lower Big Pasture or White Place. Frank, with Henry's approval, hired N. Clark Wheeler to prepare an appraisal. Frank made an offer to Henry for partition but an argument ensued over whether the land was in fact divisible or should be sold in its entirety with the proceeds divided. Frank then initiated this action. An evidentiary hearing was held and the court determined that the property was subject to equitable division between the parties and ordered that the property be partitioned. Three referees were appointed: one nominated by Frank, one nominated by Henry, and the third nominated by the first two. The court gave the referees instructions designed to aide them in fulfilling the mandates of the partition statutes. The propriety of several instructions is in dispute. After some difficulty, relating to the referees' attempt to appease both parties, the referees produced a report and recommendation for partition that was adopted by the court. Henry appeals.