Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Chapter 16 - Partnerships: Liquidation
16-47
¶9 On February 27, 1998, Brower requested copies of the Partnership’s accounting records
from the date of its inception until July 1994, when Don departed to San Francisco, and copies of
Ray’s and Doug’s personal tax returns, from attorney Carol Hardy (Hardy), who represented the
Partnership. Brower stated in his letter that Hardy’s compliance with his request was crucial, as
Chapter 16 - Partnerships: Liquidation
16-48
¶13 brothers who was married to Raymond until his death.
¶14 On December 18, 2001, Doug, Ray, and Lydia filed a motion to dismiss Don’s claims
under the RUPA as time barred under the general five-year limitation provision, § 27-2-231,
MCA, which motion was joined by Bill. In response, Greg Mattfield (Mattfield), who had been
Chapter 16 - Partnerships: Liquidation
16-49
¶17 Don’s conservatorship.
¶18 On November 15, 2002, Lydia and Raymond’s Estate requested an order dismissing them
as defendants in the matter upon the court’s approval of the real property settlement agreement.
Mattfield and Clinton Kramer (Guardians), who by then had been appointed as Don’s permanent
Chapter 16 - Partnerships: Liquidation
16-50
¶21 reserved a determination on their motion raising defenses, pending further proceedings.
¶22 On August 21, 2003, the District Court granted Ray and Doug’s motion for summary
judgment on Don’s remaining claims, including an accounting of the Partnership’s records from
Chapter 16 - Partnerships: Liquidation
16-51
¶26
¶27 As a preliminary matter, we must determine whether Don’s appeal is properly before the
Court. The Partnership contends that Don’s claims were disposed of by the District Court’s
August 2002 order, which concluded that claims accruing prior to May 23, 1995, were time
Chapter 16 - Partnerships: Liquidation
16-52
¶28 its summary judgment order of August 21, 2003, the court, although addressing the
parties’ new arguments, concluded that none of Don’s asserted claims had survived its August
2002 order applying the five-year statute of limitations–essentially a restatement of its earlier
