Opinion ID: 2634486
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: It Was Error To Deny Disotell Damages for Stiltner's Post-Dissolution Use of the Property.

Text: Disotell also argues that it was error not to award him damages for Stiltner's appropriation of the hotel property after the dissolution. He maintains that he should recover the value of Stiltner's use of the property as determined by its rental value for the months Stiltner occupied it. The superior court gave three reasons for rejecting Disotell's damages claim: (1) the partnership purpose for which Disotell `ha[d] an equal right with the partners to possess specific property' ended when the partnership terminated in May 1998; (2) any wrongful possession claims were premature because the superior court had yet to determine the parties' respective rights vis-a-vis the partnership and its assets; and (3) no order had directed either party to put the property to economic use. The court relied on Parker v. Northern Mixing Co. for support. [18] We there affirmed a superior court ruling that the appellee partners were not entitled to the rental value of the partnership property as damages for the appellant partner's post-dissolution possession of the property. [19] We think that reliance on Parker is misplaced. In Parker, the superior court had issued a pre-trial order that authorized the partner's continued possession of the property. [20] The order did not require the partner to operate the plant during that period. [21] No such order was issued here. The determination that Disotell no longer had an equal right to possess the partnership property after the partnership terminated in May 1998 is erroneous. Dissolution does not terminate a partnership; it continues until the winding up of partnership affairs is complete. [22] Because a partner... has an equal right with the partners to possess specific partnership property for partnership purposes, it follows that a partner has no right to exclude other partners from the property after dissolution but before termination and distribution. [23] As of December 2001, Stiltner continued to occupy the hotel property. The superior court found: Although it is a commercial property, Stiltner has spent most of his time at this 12,500 square foot building, including many nights, and has done so as the sole building occupant. Stiltner testified that he occupies the premises as his residence and has stored personal belongings there, and also has, since May 1998, stored the goods from his former real estate business. Stiltner is accountable to the partnership for any benefit he derived from his personal use of partnership property. Per Alaska Statute 32.05.160(a), Every partner shall account to the partnership for any benefit, and hold as trustee for it any profits derived by the partner without the consent of the other partners from any transaction connected with the formation, conduct, or liquidation of the partnership or from any use by the partner of its property. We therefore remand for determination of the value of Stiltner's personal use of the property.