Thomas Wilkoski and Scott Fisher were fifty percent owners of a partnership created for the purpose of owning and operating aircraft and an aircraft hangar. The partnership did not generate revenue, it only incurred expenses related to the aircraft and aircraft hangar owned by the partnership. 

Initially formed in 1985, the partnership was modified in 2004 so that Fisher and Wilkoski would equally share the costs of the partnership. The agreement also provided that a partner could retire from the partnership by giving a 60 day written notice of the partner’s intent to retire. However, the agreement also stipulated the partnership would not be dissolved if one partner quit, but would be continued by any remaining partners. Any interest in the partnership left by the retiring partner could be purchased by the partnership, or if it declined to, by the remaining partner.

In 2013, Wilkoski gave a 60-day written notice of his intent to retire from the partnership. After the 60 days had passed, Wilkoski stopped paying for the upkeep of the airplanes. 

Following Wilkoski’s lack of payments, Fisher sued him for breach of the partnership agreement. Fisher contended that according to the partnership agreement, Wilkoski continued to have the rights and obligations of the partnership interest until Wilkoski’s interests in the partnership were properly transferred. On the other hand, Wilkoski argued that pursuant to the partnership agreement, he was no longer a partner 60 days after his written notice and was thus not responsible for the partnerships’ costs. Who do you think is right and why? How did the court decide and what was its reasoning? Do you think the court’s reasoning is fair?