Court Opinion

ID: 9754036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:39:56.618381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:47.302652
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mb. Justice Eagen :
In 1928, L. W. Clement and his younger brother, Charles, formed a partnership for the purpose of engaging-in the plumbing business under the name -of Clement Brothers. They agreed to share the profits of the business equally after payment of the debts. L.W.. was the more alert and aggressive of the two. He attended special training schools to upgrade his plumbing skills, and became a master plumber. He alone conducted the business here involved, and had complete *471control of its finances. He frequently worked nights, Sundays and holidays. Charles, on the other hand, .refused to be “bothered” with the administration of the business or its finances. He insisted also on limiting his work to a regular eight-hour shift and confining his contribution to the business to the performance of various plumbing jobs assigned to him.
Over the years, L.W. accumulated assets which eventually became quite valuable. For instance, in 1945 he purchased two lots of land for $5500, and subsequently constructed a commercial building thereon. This construction was financed in most part by money secured through placing a mortgage on the property. In 1951 he purchased another piece of real estate for $3500, and in 1927, 1936, 1938, 1945, 1947, 1955 and 1965 purchased policies of life insurance on his own life. There aré presently existing substantial loans against some of these policies. ’
In 1964, Charles for the first time accused his brother, L.W., of xhisusing partnership funds to gain the assets he had'accumulated. Charles did not have any evidence' to substantiate' the accusation, but surmised something must be wrong since L.W. had so much while he had so little.
At trial, not a scintilla of evidence was introduced to establish that L.W. diverted any partnership funds to purchase any of his personal assets. In view of this,-, a majority of thé court; en banc below ruled that Charles failed to establish that he had any interest or property rights therein. With this I agree. The majority of this Court now rule, in effect, that, because of the fiduciary relationship existing, it is L.W.’s burden to prove that he did not misuse partnership funds. This I cannot accept on the existing record.
Finally, it is clear from the record that as to the real estate involved, Charles had full' knowledge for many years of its acquisition by L.W. before making *472any eomplaint. While it is true that the mere passage of time is insufficient to warrant the enforcement of the doctrine of laches, there is more in this case than the mere passage of time.
I dissent and would affirm the decree of the court below.