Opinion ID: 2284361
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Summary Judgment on the Issue of Partnership

Text: As submitted to the jury, Farmer's lawsuit consisted of the claim of breach of fiduciary duty by Beckman and Kirstein in their failure to wind up the partnership and account to Farmer for his share of the partnership property. The predicate of this claim was that a partnership had existed. Throughout the summary judgment phase, the parties took the position that the issue of partnership could be resolved as a matter of law. Neither filed a statement of material facts in dispute in opposing the other's motion, and each argued to the court that no material facts were in dispute. Farmer urged that undisputed facts demonstrated he was a partner, while Beckman argued that the same and additional facts showed Farmer was at most a profit-sharing employee. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Farmer, concluding that appellants had advanced virtually no record evidence to substantiate [their] allegations other than the bare conclusory denials contained in [Beckman's] lengthy affidavit. In the Court's view, those denialsunsupported as they are by factscannot defeat the very substantial evidencebased on evidence such as leases, bank accounts, tax returns, partnership announcements, etc. submitted by the Plaintiff to establish the existence of a partnership and co-ownership of their legal practice. Citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986), the court concluded that appellants' case presented little more than a metaphysical doubt about material facts, and that they had failed to carry their burden under Super.Ct. Civ.R. 56 to adduce affirmative evidence of specific facts negating the conclusion that the parties had intended to do [the] thing[s] which in law constitute a partnership. 68 C.J.S. Partnership § 10 at 416 (1950). We are compelled to disagree. Farmer did indeed present very substantial evidence that the participants characterized their relationship inter se and in dealings with third parties as a partnership. We can even conjecture that it is likely a jury would find that evidence dispositive. But on summary judgment a court cannot substitute its own opinion as to likely outcome for a precise determination whether appellants, in opposing the motion, raised genuine issues of material fact requiring jury resolution. As the following discussion reveals, appellants proffered evidence on key issues of right of control and liability for losses that raised more than a metaphysical doubt whether jurors reasonably would have to find that Farmer was a partner rather than a paid employee. In these circumstances, and on an issue as to which the intent of the parties is paramount and must be inferred from their entire conduct (there being no express partnership agreement), we conclude that summary judgment was inappropriate.