Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
07/21/97 THOMAS E. ZAREMBA, INDIV v. HARVEY LAVAN CLIBURN, JR BLUE BOOK CITATION FORM: 1997.TX.1887 ( [Editor's note: footnotes (if any) trail the opinion] [1] COURT OF APPEALS [2] SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS [3] FORT WORTH [4] NO. 2-96-238-CV [5] THOMAS E. ZAREMBA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A PARTNER, [6] Appellant v. [7] HARVEY LAVAN CLIBURN, JR., AKA VAN CLIBURN INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A PARTNER, [8] Appellee [9] FROM THE 17TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY [10] OPINION [11] Appellant Thomas E. Zaremba filed suit in the 360th Family District Court against appellee Harvey Lavan Cliburn, Jr., aka Van Clivburn for claims arising from a relationship between Zaremba and Cliburn. Those claims included: [12] An accounting of partnership assets [13] Appointment of a constructive trust [14] Breach of contract [15] Breach of fiduciary relationship and bad faith [16] Mismanagement of partnership property [17] An appointment of a receiver [18] Fraud [19] Quantum meruit and unjust enrichment [20] Intentional infliction of emotional distress [21] Zaremba alleged that on or about July 14, 1966, he and Cliburn became close friends and sexual partners and in 1977, Cliburn asked him to move in with him. He further alleged that at the same time he moved in with Cliburn, he, either orally or impliedly, agreed to provide services like shopping, doing the mail, paying the bills, drafting checks, co-managing the household, and dealing with accountants, creditors, and real estate agents in exchange for a share in Cliburn's income. He contended that 17 years later, Cliburn dissolved their alleged partnership and he received no partnership assets or income. The case was transferred to the 17th District Court of Tarrant County. Cliburn answered, generally denying the allegations and raising seven special exceptions: [22] 1.Zaremba's petition failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for any cause of action
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
based on an alleged partnership relationship because those actions must necessarily be based on an alleged partnership founded on an unwritten agreement concerning conjugal non-marital Section(s) 26.01 (Vernon 1987). [23] 2.All allegations in Zaremba's petition seek to recover community property that is only available to Texas spouses on dissolution of marriage, and Texas law does not recognize any marriage relationship other than heterosexual unions. [24] 3.All references to an oral partnership agreement failed to state sufficient facts to support finding that a business partnership existed. [25] 4.Statutes of limitations bar all of Zaremba's tort-related claims, to the extent they arose before April 29, 1994, and his contract-related claims, to the extent they arose before April 29, 1992, because the pleading alleges that Zaremba entered a partnership agreement with Cliburn in 1977 and was not compensated under that agreement. [26] 5.Zaremba's breach of contract claim was indefinite and vague.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2011 for the course EMGT 5130 taught by Professor Jeong during the Fall '11 term at UH Clear Lake.

Page1 / 11


This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online