Legal Question in Business Law in California

My husband was in a partnership with his four brothers and a developer, renting a business building for more than 15 years. In October 1999, the brothers filed a lawsuit for the sale of the building, which was the total asset of the partnership, and the dissolution of the partnership. However, the widow of one of the partners filed a counter suit in dispute of the capital contribution amounts by the partners. We agreed that the claim by the widow would be separated from the sale of the building. The building was sold in December, 2005 by court order. The money that came from the sale of the building was distributed accordingly, except for an amount that was held in court. The widow claimed that the amount should all belong to her. The claim in capital contribution is still outstanding to be heard before a judge who has the final say on the matter without appeal. The money is in an escrow account in the court. There is no movement toward resolution since March of 2006. Our lawyer has not returned calls since, and there have been no contacts by the opposing partner toward a date for the hearing. Since there is no movement for a court date, does the opposing partner default on her claim? Do we have any way to claim the unclaimed money according to our share? Do we need to go through lawyer to claim our money back?


Asked on 2/09/11, 3:59 pm

2 Answers from Attorneys

You need to fire your lawyer and get a new one to get this cleared up. No action since March 2006 is absurd and probably malpractice. If the case got as far as a sale, there is no default. So that is not an option. I have facilities in Palo Alto and Sunnyvale. If you would like to arrange a no-obligation consultation to go over the details of the situaiton, get my thoughts on how you might move it forward and discuss whether I could be of further assistance, I would be happy to set up a meeting at either facility. Just give me a call or send an email.

Read more
Answered on 2/09/11, 4:07 pm
Bryan Whipple Bryan R. R. Whipple, Attorney at Law

The deposit of funds in court suggests that there was an interpleader action to determine the proper payee, but the additional fact that the funds are still on deposit with the court clerk suggests that the interpleader was not pursued. If you would furnish me the case number, court, and perhaps the name of the case ("X vs. Y" for example), I'll look it up and give you an analysis, no charge.

Read more
Answered on 2/09/11, 5:06 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Business Law questions and answers in California