Carlson v. Carlson, 802 N.W.2d 436

Carlsons formed a farming/ranching partnership 1971–2007; land was titled in each partner’s name, but the partnership paid all costs and real estate-related expenses to enable each partner to own land and home without mortgages.
From inception, partners paid many personal and family expenses from partnership funds, with no strict accounting of personal vs. business items; after 2003, the partnership limited personal expense payments
In the 1990s, some individually owned land was sold to pay partnership debts; Gerald claimed his land-proceeds contributed more value to debt payoff than Gary’s
In 2003–04, lender required land conveyances to secure a loan; Gerald conveyed 300 acres; Gary conveyed 600 acres (including his homestead); Gary’s wife repurchased land and Gary later conveyed his interest to her
In 2002–2005, partnership paid premiums on two life-insurance policies; Gerald stopped paying Gary’s premiums in 2005 while continuing own, leading to Gary’s policy lapse; 2007 dissolution filed with related fiduciary and fraudulent-transfer claims
The district court found no accounting for unequal contributions, and that Gerald was not entitled to reimbursements for personal-credit-card charges, but held Gary’s transfer to Marlys potentially fraudulent and Gerald not liable for Gary’s premiums; this judgment is partially affirmed, vacated, and remanded on several issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are unequal real estate contributions subject to an accounting or reimbursements?	Carlson seeks credit for unequal land contributions to partnership debt under §45-16-01.	Carlson argues no accounting was required because partners agreed to unequal contributions.	No accounting required; no credit for unequal contributions (not clearly erroneous).
Are personal-credit-card charges reimbursable as partnership expenses?	Carlson claims these charges were partnership or business expenses.	Partnership never agreed to pay these specific charges; findings were inconsistent.	Findings inconsistent; remand for clarification on this issue.
Was Gary Carlson’s transfer of land to Marlys Carlson fraudulent under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act?	Gerald argues the transfer should be avoidable as a fraudulent transfer.	District court erred in treating future potential liability as a present debt; no present claim.	Voidable transfer finding vacated; no present fraudulent-transfer claim established.
Did Gerald Carlson breach fiduciary duty by failing to pay Gary Carlson’s life insurance premiums?	Gary seeks damages for breach of fiduciary duty due to lapse of Gary’s policy.	Policy premiums were Gary’s responsibility; partnership arrangement merely remunerated, not shifted duties.	Gerald liable for breach of fiduciary duty; remand to determine damages with potential contributory fault.

In re Estate of Thomas, 532 N.W.2d 676 (N.D.1995) (failure to claim or account for unequal contributions implies no intent to equalize)
Jahner v. Jacob, 515 N.W.2d 183 (N.D.1994) (presently enforceable debt required for fraudulent-transfer action against transferee)
Red River Wings, Inc. v. Hoot, Inc., 751 N.W.2d 206 (N.D.2008) (fiduciary duty and good faith in partnership dealings)
Akerlind v. Buck, 671 N.W.2d 256 (N.D.2003) (partnership relations governed by agreement; default provisions apply if not addressed by agreement)
Isaacson v. Isaacson, 777 N.W.2d 886 (N.D.2010) (court authority limited to actual controversies; advisory opinions inappropriate)