Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dorr v. Smith

August 24, 2010

MARK A. DORR, APPELLANT (DEFENDANT),
v.
SMITH, KELLER & ASSOCIATES, APPELLEE (PLAINTIFF).



Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, The Honorable Michael K. Davis, Judge.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kite, Chief Justice.

Before KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT*fn1, and BURKE, JJ.

[¶1] Mark A. Dorr appeals from the district court‟s denial of his motion to declare Smith, Keller & Associates‟ (SKA) judgment against him satisfied. He challenges the district court‟s rulings that posting a supersedeas bond did not stop interest from accruing on the judgment and he was not entitled to credit against the judgment for settlements made by third parties in related actions.

[¶2] Finding no error, we affirm.

ISSUES

[¶3] Mr. Dorr articulates two appellate issues:

I. Whether the District Court erred when it ruled that the posting of a supersedeas bond does not toll the accrual of interest on a judgment.

II. Whether the District Court erred when it ruled that Mark Dorr was not entitled to credits against the original judgment amount for settlement payments made by other parties.

SKA maintains that the district court properly denied Mr. Dorr‟s motion to declare the judgment satisfied because posting a supersedeas bond does not stop interest from accruing on a judgment and Mr. Dorr was not entitled to credit against the judgment for the third party settlements.

FACTS

[¶4] This appeal is the most recent stop on a long and tortured path toward dissolution and termination of an ill-fated and short-lived accounting partnership. Many of the underlying facts are not relevant to our decision here, but are set out in detail in our four earlier decisions in this case. Dorr, Keller, Bentley & Pecha v. Dorr, Bentley & Pecha, 841 P.2d 811 (Wyo. 1992) (Dorr I); Smith, Keller & Associates v. Dorr & Associates, 875 P.2d 1258 (Wyo. 1994) (Dorr II); Pecha v. Smith, Keller & Associates, 942 P.2d 387 (Wyo. 1997) (Dorr III) and Smith, Keller & Associates v. Dorr, 4 P.3d 872 (Wyo. 2000) (Dorr IV). We will limit our recitation of the facts to those relevant to this particular appeal.

[¶5] In 1988, two accounting firms, Dorr and Associates of Gillette and SKA of Cheyenne formed a third accounting firm named Dorr, Keller, Bentley and Pecha (DKBP). Difficulties soon arose between the partners, and SKA notified Dorr and Associates that it intended to dissolve the DKBP partnership in May 1989. In accordance with the terms of the partnership agreement, the parties submitted their disputes to arbitration. Dorr I, 841 P.2d at 813. The arbitration order awarded $105,163.78 in damages to SKA for unpaid compensation and violation of the dissolution provisions of the partnership agreement. Dorr I, 841 P.2d at 813 n.1. The arbitration award also provided:

In addition to and exclusive of the foregoing, Dorr is directed to deliver to Keller all sums in [a bank account].

Dorr is further directed to deliver to Keller all accounts receivable existing as of May 4, 1989, and to pay to Keller any sums paid for said accounts receivable hereafter.

Dorr is further directed to return to Keller all computer software in Dorr‟s possession which was brought into the partnership ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.