Kazanjian v. Rancho Estates, Ltd.

NARES, J. Concurring and Dissenting.

—I concur with the majority’s result, but not its reasoning, insofar as it determines that general partner Haber is not directly liable to limited partner Kazanjian because of the misappropriation of hinds by general partner Hops. I part company with the majority, however, on the question of whether Haber, despite his lack of “primary” liability under any of several theories argued below, should nonetheless be liable to Kazanjian on the “secondary” theory of contribution.

The majority errs in three respects. First, it reverses the trial court on a theory…