WPC\ OV!(oէCs UԡåNBlk ;p-A@]Ri'uY}ᙨ?]V ˨upH|1)AU3 "p w\*R\>idφXAlOӏMe)>O_ .[jԭW)C-xBJ ;ǡb 0)hn׸C+'h];_\}"ȄA`` '?c Пbn)ab 67, ]r@ - ɔ`[u@" #]#Y2*# LUNW % 0(w@4' 1m6U: 0 0D 0c/:U:i L U: ) U":1 -k 0D  U:     AQ! r 0D8 0D| B D/ B  D3)HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ ?U??g????U?Ӏ? ? u[%x, 3|x? #,e37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a),cAZ"Arial Regular(f(2W$ !    X XXX2XX     0  (#$  0  (;$2,e  0  .3  0   %  $  X7qXXXDXX7q    1    RDRRAswepreviouslyindicated,LannyMcCormackssoleissueonappealrelatestotheconcurrentfindingrule.  HehasnotquestionedwhetherthemethodofdissolutionemployedherewasauthorizedbytheUniformPartnershipActorthepartnershipagreement.#RR##DR#,cAZ"Arial RegularC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT,  AZ"Arial Regular"Arial Regular ##iXd#($$   1   ""  X XXX%XX    Ad FILEDX X%  November6,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular!"#&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !   d((' dxdP Pd$$$$'dxd !    TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T   X XXX! XXX!7)XXdXXd7?}2?????r )<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP  r??????????????????@m m  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  ????@hh%ATJACKSON??̜?????t )>.*jx]` `@Ed` 8ttxP` ] t????t )>.*jxP` `@Ed` 8ttxP` P tߛ?LANNYMcCORMACK,Individually  ) ` andaspartnerofMcCORMACK  ) L  FARMS, `     h   ) 8     `     h   )   ` Plaintiff/Appellant, h   )GilesChanceryNo.8800  `    `     h   )VS.   `     h   )AppealNo.01A019707CH00341  8     `     h   )ZOLLIEMcCORMACK,   h   )      `     h   )   ` Defendant/Appellee.  )    @APPEALFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTOFGILESCOUNTY@ ATPULASKI,TENNESSEE@k k THEHONORABLEWILLIAMB.CAIN,CHANCELLOR ROBERTD.MASSEY   Pulaski,TennesseeAttorneyforAppellant BENBOSTON  T CHARLESW.HOLT,JR.BOSTON,HOLT&SOCKWELL,PLLC Lawrenceburg,Tennessee "!  C.ANTHONYEDWARDS #"  Columbia,Tennessee $# AttorneysforAppellee AFFIRMED ,(, ??    `     h      p   ALANE.HIGHERS,J. 82-2 CONCUR:DAVIDR.FARMER,J.HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,J.  h ? 94:   :5; }27$XXdXXd7  ???}27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  ????}27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  ????}27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  }27$XXdXXd7  ?????  ?PlaintiffLannyMcCormackappealsthefinaljudgmententeredbythetrialcourtin   thisdissolutionofpartnershipcase.Initsfinaljudgment,thetrialcourtorderedDefendant/AppelleeZollieMcCormacktopayLannyMcCormack$137,453forallofthelattersright,title,andinterestintheMcCormackFarmspartnership.Onappeal,LannyMcCormackhasraisedonlyoneissueforthiscourtsreview:whetherthetrialcourt,whichpreviouslyhadadoptedaspecialmastersreport,erredwhenitruledthatLannysinterestinthepartnershipwouldberesolvedinamannerwhichwasnotoneofthreeoptionssetforthinthespecialmastersreport.Weaffirmthetrialcourtsjudgment.  ThislawsuitbeganwhenbrothersLannyandBarttMcCormack,individuallyandaspartnersofMcCormackFarms,filedacomplaintagainsttheirfather,ZollieMcCormack,seekingdissolutionoftheMcCormackFarmspartnershipandotherrelief.Muchoftheproceduralhistoryofthislawsuitisnotrelevanttothisappeal.Whatissignificant,however,isthatinMay1996thetrialcourtenteredanorderappointingaspecialmastertodetermineandreportseveralissuestothetrialcourt,including theproperdivisionamongthepartiesoftheassetsandliabilitiesofthepartnershipuponitsdissolution.Afterappointingthespecialmaster,butbeforethespecialmasterhadissuedhisreport,thetrialcourtenteredanorderofpartialdismissalwhichdismissedBarttMcCormackfromthislawsuitbasedontherepresentationsofthepartiesattorneysthatBarttandZollieMcCormackhad completelyresolvedtheirdifferencesarisingoutofthislawsuit.ϜAccordingly,thedisputebetweenLannyMcCormackandZollieMcCormackremainedtheonlydisputebeforethespecialmasterandthetrialcourt.  InDecember1996,thespecialmasterissuedhisreport.Aspertinenttothisappeal,paragraph23ofthereportindicatedthatthepartieshadstipulatedthepartnershipsnetworthasofDecember31,1995,tobe$950,000.InasmuchasLannyMcCormackowneda14.47%interestinthepartnership,thespecialmasterdeterminedthatinteresttobeworth$137,453.Thespecialmastersreportconcludedbystatingthat, [i]fZollieand Lannycannotdividetheassetsandliabilitiesinkind,orifonecannotbuyfromtheother, 7P28 theformerassetsofthepartnershipshouldbepartitionedbysaleanddivisionofthenetproceeds,afterpaymentofallexpenses.   Thetrialcourtsubsequentlyenteredanorderoverrulingmostofthepartiesobjectionstothespecialmastersreportand,exceptasotherwiseindicated,confirmingthereport.Regardingthemethodsoffinaldissolutionsetforthattheconclusionofthespecialmastersreport,thetrialcourtorderedthat̜????8  8`   [S]houldthepartiesnotagreetosettlethismatterbaseduponthebuyoutpursuanttothefiguressetforthinParagraph23,Page6oftheSpecialMastersreportthateitherpartymayrequestthattheCourtreviewthefeasibilityoftheothermethodsoffinaldissolutionsetforthinParagraph23shouldtheynotagreeuponsame. ` x` x ̜????  InJune1997,afterconductingahearingonthemethodofdissolutionissue,thetrialcourtenteredanordergrantingLannyMcCormackten(10)dayswithinwhichtochoosefromtwomethodsofdissolvingthepartnership.ThefirstmethodprovidedthatZollieMcCormackwouldpayLannyMcCormack$137,453forLannysinterestinthepartnership.ϜThesecondmethodprovidedthatZollieMcCormackwouldpurchaseLannyMcCormackspartnershipinterestundertheexactsametermsandconditionswherebyZolliehadpurchasedBarttMcCormackspartnershipinterestearlierinthelawsuit.??  LannyMcCormackdeclinedtochooseeitheroftheseoptions,apparentlytakingthepositionthatthetrialcourthadnoalternativebuttoorderthesaleofthepartnershipassets.Consequently,aftertheexpirationoftendays,thetrialcourtentereditsfinaljudgmentdissolvingthepartnershipbyorderingZollieMcCormacktopayLannyMcCormackthesumof$137,453forLannysinterestinthepartnership.??  Onappeal,LannyMcCormackcontendsthatthetrialcourtsmethodofdissolvingthepartnershipviolatedthe concurrentfindingrule.Underthisrule,̜????8  8`   concurrentfindingsbythemasterandtrialcourt[are]conclusiveonappealunless(1)theissueshouldnothavebeenreferredtothemaster;(2)thefindingsarebasedonanerroroflaw;(3)thefindingsinvolveaquestionoflawora  :p59 mixedquestionoflawandfact;or(4)thefindingsarenotsupportedbysubstantialandmaterialevidence. ` x` x Shepherdv.Griffin,929S.W.2d336,344(Tenn.App.1995);seealsoT.C.A.27-1-113  (1980)(providingthat, [w]heretherehasbeenaconcurrentfindingofthemasterandchancellor,whichundertheprinciplesnowobtainingisbindingontheappellatecourts,theCourtofAppealsshallnothavetherighttodisturbsuchfinding).Relyingonthisrule,LannyMcCormackcontendsthatoncethetrialcourtapprovedthespecialmastersreportsettingforththeprocedurefordissolvingthepartnership,thetrialcourtthereafterwasboundbytheconcurrentfindingruletoemploythisprocedure.  Werecognizethattheconcurrentfindingrulemayoperatetoprecludethiscourtfromrevisitingcertainfactualissueswhichwereconcurrentlydeterminedbythespecialmasterandthetrialcourt.Wearenotconvinced,however,thattheconcurrentfindingruleoperatestoprecludethetrialcourtfromrevisingitspreviousorderadoptingthespecialmastersreport.Whiletheconcurrentfindingruleclearlyappliestocasesonappeal,wehavefoundnoauthorityforapplyingtherulewhileacaseisstillatthetrialcourtlevel.  Moreover,eveniftheruleisapplicableinthetrialcourtsetting,weconcludethattheruledoesnotapplyinthiscase.Theconcurrentfindingruleappliesonlytofindingsoffactanddoesnotapplytoquestionsoflawortomixedquestionsoflawandfact.Longv. `'"% Long,957S.W.2d825,829(Tenn.App.1997);Genesco,Inc.v.Scolaro,871S.W.2d487, @)$' 492(Tenn.App.1993).Webelievethatthequestionofwhichmethodtoemploytodissolvethepartnershipwasaquestionoflawtobedeterminedbythetrialcourtafteraconsiderationofallthefactsandcircumstancesofthiscase.Ourconclusionissupportedbythefactthat,intheabsenceofapartnershipagreementtothecontrary,theUniformPartnershipAct(codifiedatT.C.A.61-1-101to147(1989&Supp.1997))controlsthemannerofdealingwithpartnershipassetsintheeventofadissolutionofthepartnership.Fowler&Rowntreev.Williams,1986WL1033,at*4(Tenn.App.Jan.24,1986);seealso `615 Hodgev.DMNSCo.,652S.W.2d762,76465(Tenn.App.1982).Asageneralrule, @837 decidingthemethodofdissolvingapartnershipwillrequireconstructionoftheUniform  :p59 PartnershipActorinterpretationofthepartnershipagreement,bothofwhichconstitutequestionsoflaw.BeareCo.v.DepartmentofRevenue,858S.W.2d906,907(Tenn.  1993);Eyringv.EastTenn.BaptistHosp.,950S.W.2d354,358(Tenn.App.1997).   #  1      ׀ p Accordingly,theconcurrentfindingruledidnotprohibitthetrialcourtinthiscasefromdepartingfromthespecialmastersreportontheissueofthemethodofdissolution.  Inanyevent,wefailtoseehowthetrialcourtsmethodofdissolvingthepartnershipdeviatedfromthespecialmastersreport.Themastersreportstatedthat, [i]fZollieandLannycannotdividetheassetsandliabilitiesinkind,orifonecannotbuyfromtheother,theformerassetsofthepartnershipshouldbepartitionedbysaleanddivisionofthenetproceeds,afterpaymentofallexpenses.LannyMcCormackinsiststhat,inasmuchasthepartiesfailedtoagreeonadivisionofthepartnershipsassetsorapurchaseoftheotherpartnersinterest,thetrialcourtwasleftwithnoalternativebuttoorderasaleofthepartnershipassets.??  Wedisagree.Byitsterms,themastersreportspecifiedthat thepartnershipshouldbepartitionedbysaleanddivisionofthenetproceedsonlyintheeventthat(1)ZollieandLannycouldnotagreeonadivisionofassetsandliabilities,and(2)neitherpartnerwascapableofbuyingtheotherpartnersinterestinthepartnership.Apparently,ZollieMcCormackwascapableofpurchasingLannyMcCormacksinterestinthepartnership,Ϝand,thus,thetrialcourtenteredafinaljudgmentorderingthatmethodofdissolvingthepartnership.Inasmuchasonepartnerwascapableofbuyingtheotherpartnersinterest,thetrialcourtdidnoterrinorderingthismethodofdissolutionratherthanorderingthesaleofthepartnershipproperty.   ? 3.2   ?Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisherebyaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedto LannyMcCormack,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.????   `     h      p   򀀀 @     `     h      p   HIGHERS,J. 0  CONCUR:򀀀  FARMER,J.򀀀 ` LILLARD,J.