Utah Court of Appeals
Are contracts with dissolved partnerships void or voidable in Utah? Wittingham v. TNE Limited Partnership Explained
Summary
TNE Limited Partnership made a loan to a dissolved limited partnership through its former general partner who failed to disclose the dissolution. The district court ruled the resulting trust deed was void, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the rule that contracts by dissolved entities are void rather than voidable.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals in Wittingham v. TNE Limited Partnership clarified an important distinction in contract law: contracts entered into by dissolved limited partnerships are void, not merely voidable, under Utah precedent.
Background and Facts
The Muir Partnership was administratively dissolved in May 2007. Two years later, Nick Muir, its former general partner, arranged a $435,000 loan from TNE Limited Partnership, signing the note in the dissolved partnership’s name without disclosing the dissolution. The loan was ostensibly to remove an encumbrance on apartment buildings, but the prior encumbrance was actually a sham. After TNE disbursed the funds and discovered the misappropriation, the current property owners sought to have the TNE trust deed declared void.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether the trust deed was void or voidable under Utah law. TNE argued the contract was merely voidable based on Miller v. Celebration Mining Co., while Wittingham contended it was void under the established precedent in Houston v. Utah Lake Land, Water & Power Co.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals applied the correctness standard to this legal question and affirmed that the trust deed was void. The court distinguished Miller, explaining that it addressed personal liability between individuals rather than overruling Houston’s holding that contracts by dissolved corporations (and by extension, limited partnerships) are “wholly void” and “not confirmable, and not a subject of ratification.” The court noted that limited partnerships are “equivalent to a corporation for litigation purposes.”
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces the critical importance of verifying entity status before entering contracts. The court acknowledged that this harsh rule may be “outdated precedent” but noted that subsequent legislative changes have modified the law prospectively for limited partnerships. Practitioners should be aware that void contracts cannot be ratified or enforced, unlike voidable contracts which may be affirmed by the injured party.
Case Details
Case Name
Wittingham v. TNE Limited Partnership
Citation
2016 UT App 187
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20140751-CA
Date Decided
September 1, 2016
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Contracts entered into by dissolved limited partnerships are void rather than voidable under Utah law, following the precedent established for dissolved corporations.
Standard of Review
Correctness for legal questions including contract validity, jurisdiction, and contract interpretation
Practice Tip
Always verify the current status of business entities before entering into contracts, as agreements with dissolved entities may be void and unenforceable.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.