Appeal from the Order of January 28, 1985, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at No. 248 April Term 1980. Appeal from the Order of January 24, 1985, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at No. 43 January Term, 1983.
Jerome J. Verlin and Alan C. Kauffman, Philadelphia, for appellant (at No. 275).
Jerome J. Verlin and Charles V. Stoelker, Jr., Philadelphia, for appellant (at No. 380).
Charles V. Stoelker, Jr., Philadelphia, for Stein, appellees (at No. 275).
David H. Weinstein, Philadelphia, for appellees (at No. 380).
Jeffrey B. Albert, Philadelphia, for Snyder, appellee (at No. 275).
Spaeth, President Judge, and Hoffman and Hester, JJ.
[ 351 Pa. Super. Page 373]
In these consolidated appeals, we review two orders in the dissolution of a series of real estate investment partnerships. The first appeal is from an interlocutory order appointing a real estate management firm to manage investment properties owned by the parties. We do not reach the issue of whether the appointment improperly created a receivership, as the appeal was taken from a non-appealable order. The second appeal, in a related action to quiet title, challenges a decree which stated that appellant holds certain property in trust for the benefit of the partnership despite his acquisition of it at a bankruptcy sale "free and clear of all encumbrances." We affirm the trial court in the second case.
No. 275 Philadelphia, 1985
This is an appeal from an interlocutory order appointing a real estate management firm, Lanard & Axilbund, to manage investment properties owned by the parties' investment partnership. The factual background is as follows.
Beginning in 1973, appellant Rappaport entered into a series of partnership agreements with Stein, Silverman and Snyder, appellees, for the purpose of purchasing real estate for investment. Appellant is an experienced real estate investor and property manager; appellees are attorneys and businessmen.
From the beginning, appellant was the moving force behind the real estate activities of all of the partnerships. He negotiated purchases, sales and leases, managed properties, provided for maintenance, restoration and repair of the properties, and advanced large sums of money to operate the enterprises. Appellees failed to make substantial monetary contributions or to participate in management. By 1979, the parties argued over their various roles in the enterprises, and the partnerships were effectively dissolved as of October, 1979.
Appellant filed this action to wind up the affairs of the partnerships since the acrimony between the partners prevented
[ 351 Pa. Super. Page 374]
an amicable termination. The parties have not yet finished accounting for the dealings of the partnerships and terminating the enterprises.
On January 28, 1985, the trial judge entered an order removing appellant from his de facto position as the manager of all ...