Opinion ID: 2635857
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the District Court Err in Failing to Divide the Joint Venture Assets Unequally Based upon the Principles of Unconscionability, Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Estoppel?

Text: Each party's share of the net profits from the joint venture was $259,742.90. Costa argued that because it was his labor and capital that completed the project, it is unconscionable for Borges to receive an equal share of the profits. He also argued that Borges should not receive an equal share because he breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Finally, he argued that Borges's conduct after June 27, 2005, showed that he had withdrawn from the joint venture and he should be estopped from changing his position and claiming a share of the profits. The district court found that it was not unconscionable for Borges to receive one-half of the net profits and that there is no evidence that Borges breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court also found that Borges did not withdraw from the joint venture. On appeal, Costa asserts that those findings are erroneous. The findings by the district court are supported by substantial and competent evidence. The district court did not err in rejecting these claims.