Pilcher

Pilcher v. Wheeler

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 3·2 Cal. App. 4th 352·3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 533·92 Daily Journal DAR 123·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 153
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 2, 1992B055788California1,399 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

The defendants in an action alleging breach of a limited partnership agreement prevailed in the trial court, but the trial court denied their motion for attorney fees. The partnership agreement did not have a provision for attorney fees, but a construction contract entered into pursuant to the partnership agreement did.

On appeal of the order denying the motion for fees, the defendants contend the partnership agreement and construction contract should be read together (Civ. Code, § 1642) or, in any event, the equitable principles stated in Jones v. Drain (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 484 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 827 ], compel an award of fees. We affirm.

Facts

Robert G. and Lawanda Pilcher entered into a limited partnership agreement with Dennis B. Wheeler, Jr., and David Martindale. Wheeler and Martindale were the general partners, and the Pilchers were limited partners. The sole purpose of the partnership was to construct commercial condominium units on certain property in the Morro Bay area and to sell the units.

Article 17 of the agreement provided that “[t]he partnership shall enter into a contract with Wheeler Construction Co., Inc. for construction of 13,000 to 14,000 square…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.