100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 6 - 8 out of 8 pages.
State law says that once the zoning board closes its public hearings on a piece of real estate, it has 40 days to issue a ruling."We haven't heard the last of that land," Chase, the zoning board's chairman, said.Lanagan said he would "absolutely" appeal the decision to the Housing Appeals Court."For him to appeal this would be a stretch," said Wayne Walega, a commercial real estate investor in town and a 40B developer. "He doesn't have the financial backing of Ed Fish. That's a substantial blow to this project. I think The Regatta project is totally dead."ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS1.Partners must complete unfinished business, collect and pay debts, collect partnership assets andtake inventory. Throughout, they must fulfill their fiduciary duties.2.The partnership's debt is particularly important in the winding up stage because if there are manycreditors the UPA determines which order the distribution of liquidated assets must follow.Furthermore, if the partners' liabilities are greater than the liquidated assets, then the partners areliable for the losses. The losses are distributed between the partners and each partner must paytheir share.3.Limited partners have the advantage of sharing most of the rights that the general partners have,yet they only have a limited liability. That is, limited partners cannot be found liable for morethan the capital they invested into the partnership. Also, if a general partner fails to bring a suiton behalf of the limited partnership, the limited partner may do so. In addition, limited partners37-6
Chapter 37 - Partnerships: Termination and Limited Partnershipsare entitled to the profits just as general partners are. However, the downside to limitedpartnership is that limited partners can in no way have a part in the management of thepartnership, because doing so would sacrifice their limited partner status, and thus loses theirlimited liability.4.The trial court judge issued a written opinion in Greenfeld’s favor. In particular, she found thatthe actions set out above satisfied the elements of conversion, breach of the partnershipagreement and breach of their fiduciary duties owed to Greenfeld under the Uniform PartnershipAct. These then supported her finding that the Stitely and and Karstetter were guilty of commonlaw conspiracy and that they conspired to injure Greenfeld in his business.In calculating damages, the court found that the value of the accounting partnership (SK&G) asof the date that the defendants took control of the assets was $1,017,000. Therefore, Greenfeld’sone-third interest was worth $339,000. The court reduced this amount by the amount ofGreenfeld’s unpaid loan to SK&G, leaving a net balance of $233,066. Next the judge valued thecondominiums as of the date of trial at $1,365,000, which, when reduced by the value of theunpaid mortgage, resulted in a net value of $691,089. Greenfeld’s share was worth $230,363.