Ziemann v. Grosz

Summary

The court affirmed the determination that the parties formed an oral partnership, that Grosz contributed inventory to it, that Ziemann could remain on the property during winding up, that Ziemann was the prevailing party for costs, and that Ziemann's tort claims were properly dismissed. It held that the challenge to denial of summary judgment on partnership formation was moot after trial and that the evidence supporting the tort claims was either inadmissible hearsay or insufficient to establish ascertainable damages. The court reversed because the district court failed to apply the statutory default rules requiring settlement of the partners' accounts during winding up and remanded for a consistent judgment.