Logoluso v. Logoluso

California Court of Appeal · 1965 · Corporations

233 Cal. App. 2d 523 (1965)

Updated August 22, 2026

CorporationsPartnership dissolutionDistribution in kinddivision in kindsale of partnership assetspartial settlementreal propertyequity

Facts

Five brothers operated a farming partnership that owned 12 parcels of real property, substantial equipment, and liquid assets, and one brother gave notice of resignation and demanded termination of the partnership. The brothers then met and each selected parcels, with 10 parcels allocated by first and second choices and the remaining 2 parcels auctioned among them; they also agreed to appoint appraisers so adjustments could be made to equalize values. The trial court found both that the partners had carried out these selections and auction and that the acts were only part of ongoing negotiations that were withdrawn before appraisals were made. The court nonetheless ordered all partnership assets, including all real property, sold as a unit.

Issue

In a partnership dissolution action, may a court order partnership real property sold when the partners may have already executed an agreement dividing that property in kind? More generally, does a court have authority to distribute partnership real property in kind rather than require a sale?

Rule

Partners in dissolution proceedings may agree to divide partnership property in kind, including by partial settlement, and such an executed settlement is binding between them unless assailed for mistake, error, or fraud. A court in a partnership dissolution action also has equitable authority to distribute partnership real property in kind, but only if sale is not necessary to satisfy partnership obligations; absent such necessity, a sale is justified only upon a finding that distribution in kind would result in great prejudice to the parties. If division in kind is made an issue, the court must make a specific finding on that issue.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Three partners in a vineyard partnership in Napa met after deciding to dissolve. They each selected one tract of the partnership's land, agreed that an appraiser would later equalize any difference in value, and then left the farm equipment and receivables for later accounting; months later, one partner demanded that all land be sold because the dissolution was not yet complete.

If no partner alleges mistake, error, or fraud in the land allocation, which is the strongest argument against ordering a sale of the land?

Explanation. The majority held that partners may enter an executed partial settlement covering only part of partnership affairs, including real property, while leaving other matters for later resolution. Such a settlement is binding between the partners unless assailed for mistake, error, or fraud. Therefore the land allocation may be honored even though equipment and receivables remain to be settled.