AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• H&B Properties, Inc., a family-owned business operating the NAN Ranch, entered into an oral agreement with Mark Miller in 2013. Under this agreement, Miller was to lead hunting parties, provide predator control, and perform habitat improvement on the Ranch in exchange for housing, resources, and a split of the profits from hunting excursions. After H&B decided to sell a portion of the Ranch in 2015, Miller recorded affidavits that clouded the title to the property, leading to the termination of their business relationship. H&B filed a lawsuit against Miller, who counterclaimed for breach of contract among other claims (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellant (H&B Properties, Inc.): Argued that the district court incorrectly applied partnership law, the statute of frauds should bar enforcement of the oral agreement, the jury received incorrect and misleading instructions, and the damages award was excessive and unsupported by evidence (para 6).
• Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellee (Mark Miller): Counterclaimed for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, estoppel, and breach of partnership agreement, asserting that the oral agreement and their subsequent actions constituted a partnership, which H&B wrongfully dissociated from, entitling him to damages (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in finding that the parties engaged in a partnership.
• Whether the statute of frauds bars enforcement of the parties’ oral agreement.
• Whether the jury instructions were incorrect and misleading.
• Whether the damages award was excessive and unsupported by evidence (para 6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in favor of Mark Miller, rejecting H&B's arguments on appeal (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that H&B had stipulated pretrial that a partnership existed between the parties, thus not reviewing H&B's claim that the district court erred in finding a partnership (paras 7-10). The Court also held that the doctrine of partial performance removed the agreement from the statute of frauds, affirming the district court's conclusion (paras 11-19). The Court determined that H&B did not preserve its arguments regarding jury instructions for review and found no basis to conclude the jury’s damages award was excessive, affirming the district court's rulings on these issues as well (paras 20-31).