PIETZ v. INDERMUEHLE

No. 20497-5-II.

949 P.2d 449 (1998)

89 Wash.App. 503

Edward H. PIETZ, Appellant, v. Charles INDERMUEHLE and Ruth Indermuehle, Lamont Smith and Jane Doe Smith, Michael J. Wynne and Mary Wynne, Defendants, Leslie E. Fordham and Virginia Fordham, Respondents.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.

As Amended on Clarification February 27, 1998.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

James D. Hamilton, Vancouver, for Appellant.

Rodney E. Lewis, James S. Smith, Darleen Darnall, Davis Wright Tremaine, Portland, for Respondents.


SEINFELD, Judge.

The trial court summarily dismissed Edward Pietz's action against his former partners for indemnification, contribution, and breach of fiduciary duties. Pietz appeals, contending that the trial court erred in ruling that these claims were time barred. We hold that Pietz's partnership indemnity/contribution claim did not accrue until he paid the settlement and was, therefore, timely. We also find that there...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases