# Wirth v. Sierra Cascade, LLC

> Court of Appeals of Oregon · April 14, 2010 · 234 Or. App. 740

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9795932

## Case

- **Full name:** David B. WIRTH and Diana R. Wirth, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. SIERRA CASCADE, LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company; And Its Sole Member Dana Van Pelt, Defendants-Appellants. SIERRA CASCADE, LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. C. B. FOSS., an Individual; Pat Schafner, an Individual, Dba South Central Pumice; And Does 1-10, Third-Party Defendants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Oregon
- **Decided:** April 14, 2010
- **Citations:** 234 Or. App. 740; 230 P.3d 29; 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 395
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wollheim
- **Judges:** Wollheim, Brewer, Sercombe
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9795932

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the Statute of Frauds does not apply to agreements to transfer property “from partner to partnership” or “from partner to partner, on behalf of the partnership”
- stating that “it can be inferred that receiving a share of profits is the most important” of the five statutory partnership factors
- noting that "parties will be amply protected from fraud in identifying partnership property and the partners' respective interests therein" by the statute governing what constitutes partnership property
- stating that “it is the role of the jury to determine whether that evidence is credible”
- finding some evidence of an expressed intent to be partners when the plaintiffs referred to the defendant as their “partner”

## Opinion text

WOLLHEIM, P. J.,
concurring.
I concur with the majority opinion’s holding that the trial court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The trial court erred because there are genuine *775 issues of material fact that must be determined by a fact-finder. For example, there are genuine issues of material fact regarding the existence of an oral partnership agreement between plaintiffs and defendants and, if an oral partnership between the parties exists, the number of acres included therein. Because there are genuine issues of material fact, I concur with the majority opinion’s conclusion that the limited judgment must be reversed and remanded.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9795932. Public record. Not legal advice.