Opinion ID: 2048925
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: As heretofore disclosed, when defendant submitted the dismissal motion he also moved the case be reopened for taking of further evidence.

Text: In so doing defendant urged a full accounting had not been made because losses attendant upon performance of the executory contracts had not been disclosed. More specifically, defendant contends there could be no complete and fair accounting absent a showing of all losses as well as profits. Defendant concedes the determination as to whether a case is to be reopened for introduction of additional evidence is ordinarily a matter of resting in trial court's sound discretion. See Crane v. Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railway Co., 160 N. W.2d 838, 846 (Iowa 1968), and citations. But the facts and circumstances here involved take this case out of the ordinary situation. Had defendant moved to reopen for proof of previously unknown or inadvertently undisclosed relevant partnership profits the motion would undoubtedly have been sustained. By the same token a just decision necessitates full disclosure of losses related to the aforesaid three executory contracts. This is essentially a matter of fairness. Confining ourselves to the situation here presented we cannot say trial court's denial of defendant's reopening motion was equitable. See Wolf v. Murrane, 199 N.W.2d 90, 101 (Iowa 1972); cf. Thornberry v. State Board of Regents, 186 N.W.2d 154, 160-161 (Iowa 1971), and citations. In other words, defendant should have been accorded opportunity, as a part of his accounting, to present further evidence confined to the showing of relevant losses and expenses, if any, not previously shown which attended the instantly involved contracts. This is deemed essential to a full accounting and to a just decision. See generally Engel v. Vernon, 215 N.W. 2d at 514-515; Wolf v. Murrane, 199 N. W.2d at 98-101; Roth v. Boies, 139 Iowa 253, 270-273, 115 N.W. 930 (1908); MacDonald v. Kuhn, 70 Cal.App. 691, 234 P. 118, 119-120 (1925); 60 Am.Jur.2d, Partnership, §§ 208-211, 218, 230-233; 68 C.J.S. Partnership §§ 385, 389, 394-395; Annot., 55 A.L.R.2d 1391. For reasons last above set forth this case must be reversed and remanded for further proceedings in conformity herewith. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.