Ziemann v. Grosz

Summary

The court affirmed the determination that the parties formed an oral partnership, that Grosz contributed salvage inventory to it, that Ziemann was not trespassing, that Ziemann’s tort claims were properly dismissed on summary judgment, and that Ziemann was the prevailing party for costs. The court reversed the winding-up judgment because the district court failed to apply the statutory default rules requiring settlement of the partners’ accounts, including credits for contributions. The court remanded for entry of a consistent judgment.