Knudson v. Kyllo
Shawn Knudson, Individually,
and as a Partner of Tri-K Farms, Plaintiff, Appellant and Cross-Appellee
Randy Kyllo, Individually,
and as a Partner of Tri-K Farms, Defendant, Appellee and Cross-Appellant
East Central Judicial District,
Judge Steven L. Marquart
|Nature of Action:||Other (Civil)|
|Term:||04/2012  Argument: 04/30/2012|
|ND cite:||2012 ND 155|
819 N.W.2d 511
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
Whether the district court's determination that the bin site has a value of $208,000 is clearly erroneous, when the parties did not dispute that the value was $300,000 and when Randy Kyllo presented no expert testimony to rebut the $300,000 value.
Whether the district court's determination regarding the values of the equipment is clearly erroneous when Randy Kyllo did not obtain an expert witness to rebut the values of the equipment, when the district court used trade-in values, rather than fair market values, for the JD 8960 Tractor, JD 84000 T Tractor, and JD 8310 MFD Tractor, when the parties did not dispute the value of the Row Crop Cultivator, and when Randy Kyllo provided no testimony to support the value of the New Auger, Rod Weeder, and Rotary Ditcher.
Whether the district court court's determination that Randy Kyllo did not owe Shawn Knudson half of $71,217 for the Mayport Farmer's Cooperative bill is clearly erroneous when Randy Kyllo did not present any testimony that he did not owe that bill.
Whether the district court's determination that Randy Kyllo did not tortiously interfer with Shawn Knudson's access to the bin site and the Kievman land is clearly erroneous when Shawn Knudson had a possessory right to the bin site and when Randy Kyllo prevented Shawn Knudson from farming the Kievman land.
Whether the district court's determination that Shawn Knudson and Randy Kyllo had a dissolution agreement is clearly erroneous, when the parties agreed to the terms of the dissolution agreement in March 2006.
Whether the district court's determination that $26,877 was partnership income is clearly erroneous when that money was Shawn Knudson's individual income from his individual tax return.
Reply Brief Issues
 Whether the district court's determination to award Kyllo $1,526.97 is clearly erroneous.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Did the District Court correctly conclude the parties did not enter into a partnership dissolution agreement?
2. Did the District Court correctly conclude Kyllo did not tortiously interfere with, or forcibly eject Knudson from, the Kievman land and Kyllo bin site?
3. Did the District Court correctly conclude a distribution of partnership equipment requires a payment from Knudson to Kyllo of $14,858.50?
4. Did the District Court correctly conclude Knudson failed to prove the Mayport Farmer's Co-op bill was a partnership debt?
5. Did the District Court correctly require a payment by Kyllo to Knudson of $104,000 for a division of the Tri-K property on the bin site?
6. Did the District Court correctly conclude $26,877 in Knudson farm income was a partnership asset?
7. Did the District Court correctly conclude the partnership leases were not partnership assets?
8. Did the District Court err in awarding Kyllo $1,526.97 on his Counterclaim?
|Add Docket 20110282 RSS|
|1||09/23/2011 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 09/23/2011|
|2||09/23/2011 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 09/23/2011|
|3||10/20/2011 Electronic RECORD ON APPEAL (Image Nos. 1 - 259)|
|4||11/09/2011 MOT. EXT/TIME TRANSCRIPT|
|5||11/09/2011 ACTION BY TRIAL COURT (MTR). Granted: 12/21/2011|
|6||12/16/2011 TRANSCRIPTS DATED JULY 5, 2011, JULY 6, 2011, JULY 7, 2011, AND JULY 8, 2011, & C.O.S.|
|7||12/19/2011 DISK-TRA (7/5/11, 7/6/11, 7/7/11 & 7/8/11) E-MAILED|
|8||01/27/2012 NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL|
|9||01/25/2012 APPELLANT BRIEF|
|10||01/25/2012 E-FILED BRIEF|
|11||01/25/2012 APPELLANT APPENDIX|
|12||01/25/2012 E-FILED APPENDIX|
|13||01/26/2012 RECEIVED $25 E-FILING SURCHARGE FOR ATB & $219.50 FOR ATA (RECEIPT #20850).|
|14||01/31/2012 Received 7 copies of ATB from Central Duplicating.|
|15||01/31/2012 Received 6 copies of ATA from Central Duplicating.|
|16||02/23/2012 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLEE BRIEF|
|17||02/24/2012 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT. Granted: 03/07/2012|
|18||03/07/2012 APPELLEE BRIEF|
|19||03/07/2012 APPELLEE APPENDIX|
|20||03/07/2012 DISK - aeb (e-mailed)|
|21||03/15/2012 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|22||03/16/2012 MOTION FOR Extension of Word Limits for reply brief|
|23||03/16/2012 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE. Granted|
|24||03/20/2012 REPLY BRIEF|
|25||03/20/2012 E-FILED BRIEF|
|26||03/23/2012 Received 7 copies of RYB from CSD|
|27||04/30/2012 APPEARANCES: Ronald H. McLean; Peter W. Zuger; Michael T. Andrews|
|28||04/30/2012 ARGUED: Ronald H. McLean; Michael T. Andrews|
|29||04/30/2012 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|30||07/26/2012 DISPOSITION (AND REMANDED): AFFIRMED/PT, REVERSED/PT|
|31||07/26/2012 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Kapsner, Carol Ronning|
|32||07/26/2012 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellee|
|33||07/27/2012 Judgment Sent to Parties|
|35||08/29/2012 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|