Tom Stull v. Michael Fox

MEMORANDUM

Tom Stull brought suit to recover advances that he made to Michael Fox as part of a land development venture that Stull entered into with Fox and a third partner, Kevin Beer. Fox counterclaimed, arguing that Stull breached their partner ship agreement. The district court entered judgment for Fox, finding that there was a partnership agreement, which Stull breached. The court ordered the partnership wound up, Stull to be repaid his advances, “plus 10% interest,” and any-remaining amounts to be apportioned according to each partner’s interest. In response to post-judgment motions, the court clarified that the 10% interest was a one-time fee and not an accruing interest. The court also granted Fox’s motion to use partnership profits to pay his attorneys’ fees. Stull appeals the district court’s determination that “10% interest” refers to a one-time fee and the award of attorneys’ fees. Fox cross-appeals, arguing that the district court erred in not awarding damages for Stull’s breach. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Stull argues that the district court’s finding that “10% interest” means a onetime 10% fee, as opposed to an accruing interest…