Saint Alphonsus Diversified Care, Inc. v. MRI Associates, LLP

This is an appeal from a judgment against a general partner for wrongful dissociation, breach of a noncompete clause, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with prospective contractual relations or business expectations, breach of fiduciary duties, and civil conspiracy. We vacate the judgment and remand this case for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

Doctors of Magnetic Resonance, Inc.; Saint Alphonsus Diversified Care, Inc.;1 Mednow, Inc.; and HCA of Idaho, Inc.,2 formed a general partnership named MRI Associates (MRIA).3 The parties executed a written partnership agreement that was effective on April 26, 1985. The purpose of the partnership was to acquire and operate diagnostic and therapeutic devices, equipment, and accessories, beginning with a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner; to acquire related buildings and other facilities; and to transact all business matters incident to such activities. MRIA and others formed two limited partnerships: MRI Limited Partnership (MRI Center), which owned and operated an MRI scanner located on the hospital campus of St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center (St. Alphonsus) under the name of MRI Center of Idaho, and MRI Mobile Limited Partnership (MRI Mobile), which owned and operated mobile MRI scanners. MRIA owned thirty percent of, and was the general partner of, each limited partnership.

For years following the creation of MRIA, physicians at St. Alphonsus used MRI Center to produce MRI scans and radiologists from the Saint Alphonsus Radiology Group, also known as Gem State Radiology (GSR), to read the scans. The radiologists organized as GSR were under an exclusive contract to serve the professional radiological needs of St. Alphonsus’s patients.

In 1998, the radiologists at GSR began planning to construct and operate an outpatient medical imaging facility that would provide a full range of medical imaging services, including both MRI imaging and other imaging services that were not provided by MRI Center. After GSR had acquired land in downtown Boise, it disclosed its plans to St. Alphonsus and encouraged it to become involved in the project. Thereafter, there were unsuccessful negotiations among the *484GSR radiologists, St. Alphonsus, and MRIA to have one medical imaging entity.

The radiologists formed the partnership Intermountain Medical Imaging, LLC (Inter-mountain Imaging), which began operating on September 1, 1999. On July 1, 2001, Saint Alphonsus became a partner in the non-MRI part of the business of IMI.

On February 24, 2004, Saint Alphonsus Diversified Care, Inc. gave notice to MRIA that it would dissociate from the partnership effective on April 1, 2004, and on October 18, 2004, it filed this lawsuit seeking a judicial determination of the amount it was entitled to receive for its interest in MRIA. MRIA responded by filing a multi-count counterclaim against Saint Alphonsus Diversified Care, Inc., and against St. Alphonsus4 (both herein called St. Alphonsus) and by filing third-party claims. The claims against the third-party defendants were ultimately dismissed.

Ultimately, the ease went to a jury trial on the remaining causes of action in MRIA’s counterclaim alleging causes of action for wrongful dissociation, breach of a noncompete clause, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with prospective contractual relations or business expectations, breach of fiduciary duties, and civil conspiracy. The jury found St. Alphonsus liable on all causes of action, and awarded damages of $63.5 million. The district court reduced the verdict to $36.3 million after determining that the jury had totaled damage awards on two alternative theories. The court also denied St. Alphonsus’s motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. St. Alphonsus then timely appealed.

II. ISSUES

1. Did the district court err in holding that St. Alphonsus wrongfully dissociated from MRIA?

2. Did the district court err in submitting to the jury the issue of whether the partnership agreement contained a definite term?

3. Did the district court err in admitting into evidence a memorandum that included a reference to legal advice received by St. Alphonsus?

4. Did the district court err by admitting into evidence a settlement offer made by MRIA?

5. ' Must the award of damages be vacated because it includes damages sustained by nonparties?

6. Must the award of damages be vacated because it includes lost profits beyond the term of the partnership?

7. Must the award of damages be vacated because there was insufficient evidence to support the award of lost profits?

8. Does the evidence support an award of damages based upon the value of MRIA?

9. Did the district court err in denying MRIA’s motion to amend to add a claim for punitive damages?

10. Did the district court err in dismissing MRIA’s antitrust cause of action?

11. Is either party entitled to an award of attorney fees on appeal?

III. ANALYSIS

A. Did the District Court Err in Holding that St. Alphonsus Wrongfully Dissociated from MRIA?

St. Alphonsus dissociated from MRIA on April 1, 2004. MRIA included in its counterclaim a cause of action for wrongful dissociation alleged under two theories: (a) the dissociation breached an express provision of the partnership agreement and (b) the partnership agreement had a definite term and the dissociation occurred prior to the expiration of that term. MRIA and St. Alphonsus both filed motions for partial summary judgment on that cause of action. The district court granted MRIA’s motion for summary judgment, holding that St. Alphonsus’s dissociation was wrongful because it breached an express provision of the partnership agreement. The court did not discuss the alternative theory that the dissociation occurred pri- or to the expiration of the definite term of *485the partnership. St. Alphonsus contends the district court erred in granting the partial summary judgment.

“A partner who wrongfully dissociates is liable to the partnership and to the other partners for damages caused by the dissociation.” I.C. § 53-3-602(c). A partner’s dissociation is wrongful if “[i]t is in breach of an express provision of the partnership agreement.” I.C. § 53 — 3—602(b)(1). Whether there is an express provision in the partnership agreement that was breached by the dissociation is an issue of law over which we will exercise free review. See Howard v. Perry, 141 Idaho 139, 142, 106 P.3d 465, 468 (2005) (“Whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law over which we exercise free review.”). The partnership agreement was effective on April 26, 1985. Because of a subsequent change in the applicable law, it is necessary to first discuss how the agreement is to be viewed when addressing this issue.

When the parties entered into the partnership agreement, the applicable law in Idaho was the “Uniform Partnership Law” (UPL), former I.C. §§ 53-301 et seq.5 The UPL did not include the concept of dissociation. Under the UPL, a partnership was not a legal entity distinct from the partners. Swope v. Swope, 112 Idaho 974, 981, 739 P.2d 273, 280 (1987). It was “an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit.” State v. Cosgrove, 36 Idaho 278, 285, 210 P. 393, 395 (1922); former I.C. § 53-306(1). Therefore, the withdrawal of one partner caused a dissolution of the partnership. Kelly v. Silverwood, Estates, 127 Idaho 624, 628, 903 P.2d 1321, 1325 (1995); Elliot v. Elliot, 88 Idaho 81, 86, 396 P.2d 719, 722 (1964); former I.C. § 53-329. A partner could at any time withdraw from the partnership by the partner’s express will to cease being associated in the carrying on of the partnership business. Former I.C. §§ 53-329 & 53-331.6 If that breached the partnership agreement, the partner could be liable for wrongful dissolution. Former I.C. § 53-338(2)(a)(2).

In 1998, the UPL was repealed effective July 1, 2001, and the “Uniform Partnership Act (1996)” (RUPA), I.C. §§ 53-3-101 et seq., was enacted effective January 1, 2001.7 Ch. 65, §§ 1 & 3,1998 Idaho Sess. Laws 226, 227, 259. The RUPA introduced the new concept of “dissociation.”

Under the RUPA, “[a] partnership is an entity distinct from its partners.” I.C. § 53-3-201(a). An association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit forms a partnership; they are not the partnership. I.C. § 53-3-202(a). A partner who chooses to withdraw from the partnership is dissociated, I.C. § 53-3-601(1), but “[t]he dissociation of the partner does not require the dissolution of the partnership and the winding up of its affairs.” Costa v. Borges, 145 Idaho 353, 357, 179 P.3d 316, 320 (2008). A partner has the power to dissociate at any time, rightfully or wrongfully. I.C. § 53-3-602(a). If a partner wrongfully dissociates, a majority in interest of the remaining partners can, within ninety days, agree to continue the partnership, I.C. § 53-3-801(1) & (2)(i), but they will have to purchase the dissociating partner’s interest. I.C. § 53-3-701.

*486Under the UPL, a partner by express will eonld cease to be associated in the carrying on of the partnership business. Former I.C. §§ 53-829 & 53 — 331(1)(b) & (2). Under the RUPA, a partner can give notice of the partner’s express will to withdraw as a partner, which terminates the partner’s right to participate in the management and conduct of the partnership business. I.C. §§ 53-3-601(1) and 53-3-603(a). Under both statutory schemes, a partner can choose to withdraw from a partnership. Thus, the issue is whether St. Alphonsus’s withdrawal from the partnership breached an express provision of the partnership agreement. In construing the meaning of the provision allegedly breached, however, the terms of the agreement must be viewed in the context of the UPL because that was the law in effect when the parties entered into the agreement.

The relevant provision of the partnership agreement is as follows:

ARTICLE 6

WITHDRAWAL OF HOSPITAL PARTNER

6.1Conditions for withdrawal. Any Hospital Partner may withdraw from the Partnership at any time if, in a Hospital Partner’s reasonable judgment, continued participation in this Partnership: (i) jeopardizes the tax-exempt status of such Hospital Partner or its parent or their subsidiaries; or (ii) jeopardizes medieare/medicaid or insurance reimbursements or participations; (iii) if the business activities of the Partnership are contrary to the ethical principles of the Roman Catholic Church as designated from time to time; or (iv) is or may be in violation of any local, state or federal laws, rules or regulations. In the event that a Hospital Partner withdraws, such Hospital Partner’s interest in the Partnership shall terminate on the date of withdrawal, and that interest, including, without limitation, the Hospital Partner’s vote on the Board of Partners and its interest in the Partnership management fee, shall be reallocated among the remaining Hospital Partners. (If there are no remaining Hospital Partners, the reallocation shall be among the remaining Partners). Unless otherwise agreed, the withdrawing Hospital Partner shall only be entitled to receive for its interest in the Partnership an amount: which is equal to the balance in such Hospital Partner’s capital account at the time of withdrawal.

6.2 Payment for Interest. The price for the withdrawing Hospital Partner’s interest in the partnership shall be paid to such Hospital Partner by the Partners to which its interest in the Partnership has been allocated, without interest, in installments equal to, and due at the same time as, distributions of the Net Cash Flow which the Hospital Partner would have received had it remained a Partner in the Partnership.

6.3 Loans and Other Liabilities. Loans payable to the withdrawing Hospital Partner shall be paid as provided herein. Withdrawal shall not relieve the Hospital Partner from its contingent liability for its Capital Ratio share of Partnership liabilities in existence on the date of withdrawal.

When deciding whether St. Alphonsus’s dissociation was wrongful, the district court considered only the first sentence in section 6.1 of the agreement. It concluded that the words “Any Hospital Partner may withdraw from the Partnership at any time if’ followed by four defined circumstances was an express provision limiting the circumstances under which St. Alphonsus could rightfully dissociate. The court reasoned as follows:

When reading contract terms, the Court must apply the ordinary and plain meaning to the words used. The word “if’ is commonly defined as “a: in the event that, b: allowing that, c: on the assumption that, d: on condition that.” Substituting one of these definitions into the contract language, section 6.1 allows the Hospital Partners to withdraw on the condition that one of the listed events occurs. In the reverse, if one of the four reasons is not present, the Hospital Partners may not withdraw from the partnership rightfully. In the Court’s view, the use of “only” before “if’ would be redundant in this context. The *487section, “Conditions for Withdrawal” lends farther support to the Court’s finding that “if’ was expressly conditional language. (Emphases in original; citation and footnote omitted.)

The district court picked one definition of the word “if’ (“on condition that”) and concluded that section 6.1 established the conditions that must exist before a hospital partner could withdraw from the partnership without breaching the agreement. Another definition rejected by the court would also be consistent with the context. The sentence could be read to state that the hospital partner may withdraw in the event that one of the listed events occurs. For example, the second sentence of the section begins, “In the event that a Hospital Partner withdraws ....” It would not change the meaning to substitute “If’ for “In the event that.” The district court found some support for its interpretation by the section title, “Conditions for Withdrawal.” However, the word “conditions” is synonymous with “circumstances.” Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus 164 (Houghton Mifflin Co.1988). With “if’ and “conditions” given these alternative meanings, the section is not an express provision limiting the circumstances under which St. Alphonsus could withdraw without breaching the partnership agreement.

With these meanings, the section would provide that St. Alphonsus could withdraw from the partnership in the event that any of four circumstances occurred. To conclude it prohibited withdrawal unless one of those four circumstances occurred, one would have to apply the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another). “When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary 581 (6th ed.1990). Application of the maxim is not mandatory. Hewson v. Asker’s Thrift Shop, 120 Idaho 164, 166-67, 814 P.2d 424, 426-27 (1991). However, even if that maxim were applied to infer that these four circumstances were exclusive, that would not be an express provision limiting the circumstances in which St. Alphonsus could rightfully dissociate.

In Asker’s Thrift Shop, a statute granted an injured employee “the right to have a physician or surgeon designated and paid by himself present at an examination by a physician or surgeon so designated by the employer.” The employer’s surety arranged for the employee to undergo a panel evaluation by a psychiatrist and neurologist, and the employee refused to undergo the examination unless either she could tape record it or her former husband could observe it. The Industrial Commission applied the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius and concluded that the statute only permitted the employee to have either a physician or surgeon present during the examination. It then dismissed the employee’s case for refusing to submit to the examination, and she appealed. We held that the statute did not limit whom the employee could have present during the examination. We stated:

Idaho Code § 72-433 does not contain any express enumeration of persons who can or can not attend a medical evaluation or exam. The statute simply guarantees the right of an employee to attend a compelled medical examination with a physician of his or her choice.... The fact that the statute allows the employee’s physician to be present, does not automatically or necessarily exclude all others.

120 Idaho at 167, 814 P.2d at 427 (emphasis added). If we inferred that the listing of four circumstances excluded all others, it would not be an express provision limiting the circumstances under which St. Alphonsus could withdraw from the partnership.

It is also necessary to consider the section in the context of the UPL to see if there was a reason for the provision other than limiting the circumstances under which a hospital could withdraw from the partnership without breaching the agreement. The four circumstances listed were ones beyond the control of the hospital partner in which it would, in essence, be compelled to withdraw from the partnership. They were:

[I]f ... continued participation in [the] Partnership: (i) jeopardizes the tax-exempt status of such Hospital Partner or its parent or their subsidiaries; or (ii) jeopardizes medicare/medicaid or insurance re*488imbursements or participations; (iii) if the business activities of the Partnership are contrary to the ethical principles of the Roman Catholic Church as designated from time to time; or (iv) is or may be in violation of any local, state or federal laws, rules or regulations.

Under the UPL, if St. Alphonsus withdrew the partnership would be dissolved and its affairs wound up. Absent an agreement to the contrary, the partnership property would be applied to discharge its liabilities and the surplus, if any, paid to the partners. Former I.C. § 53-338(l).8 If that occurred, St. Alphonsus and the other partners may have recovered less than they had invested in the partnership.

Article 6 could be read as a dissolution agreement applicable if a hospital partner was, in essence, forced to withdraw from the partnership for one of the four reasons listed. If that occurred, the partnership would be dissolved, but it would not have to be wound up. The remaining partners could continue the partnership business and pay off the withdrawing hospital partner over time. The hospital partner would receive an amount equal to the balance of its capital account, which may be more than it would receive if the partnership were wound up, and the remaining partners could have the benefit of continuing with the business.

In addition, the district court held that article 6 was ambiguous insofar as whether the dissolution agreement in that provision applied to any withdrawal by a hospital partner or only to withdrawals for one of the four reasons listed. The court held that both interpretations were equally plausible. If the dissolution agreement only applied to those four reasons, it would add credence to the interpretation that article 6 was drafted only to permit a hospital partner to withdraw if it felt compelled to do so for one of those four listed reasons and, if it did so, to recover its investment. Thus, article 6 may have been drafted to cover the most likely situations in which a hospital partner may be forced to withdraw from the partnership due to circumstances beyond its control in order to allow the hospital partner to recover its investment and to permit the remaining partners to continue with the partnership business.

Idaho Code § 53-3-602(b)(1) provides that a dissociation is wrongful if it is “in breach of an express provision of the partnership agreement.” The statute does not simply provide that dissociation is wrongful if it is in breach of the partnership agreement, or if it is in breach of a provision in the partnership agreement. It is only wrongful if it breaches an express provision of the partnership agreement. We have defined the word “express” as follows: “Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘express’ as, ‘[c]lear; definite; explicit; plain; direct; unmistakable; not dubious or ambiguous. Declared in terms; set forth in words. Directly and distinctly stated. Made known distinctly and explicitly, and not left to inference. ‘Express’ means ‘manifested by direct and appropriate language.’ ” Sweeney v. Otter, 119 Idaho 135, 140, 804 P.2d 308, 313 (1990) (citations omitted). Because the provision limiting the right to withdraw rightfully must be an express provision, any doubt as to the meaning of the provision at issue must be resolved in favor of not limiting the right to withdraw. The provision of the partnership agreement at issue does not contain any prohibitive language. For example, it does not state that a hospital partner shall not withdraw from the partnership except under the specified circumstances. Likewise, it does not state that a hospital partner may only withdraw from the partnership under the specified circumstances.9 We hold that the *489provision is not an express provision limiting the right to dissociate rightfully.

St. Alphonsus was clearly prejudiced by the district court’s determination that it had wrongfully dissociated from the partnership. At the beginning of the trial before opening statements, the district court instructed the jury, “The Court has already determined as a matter of law that Saint Alphonsus Diversified Care breached the MRI Associates Partnership Agreement when Saint Alphonsus Diversified Care, Inc., dissociated from MRI Associates in April of 2004.” At the beginning of MRIA’s opening statement, its counsel stated:

What the real story in this case is about, though — it is about betrayal. It is about abandonment.

Now, the court has said that it has found that Saint Alphonsus wrongfully withdrew from the partnership. That’s been discussed in opening statement. It will be discussed — excuse me, it’s been discussed during jury selection. It will be discussed in opening statement. You’ll hear a lot about that.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the court again instructed the jury, “The following facts are not in dispute: St. Alphonsus and MRIA were partners and entered into a Partnership Agreement in 1985. St. Alphonsus disassociated from the partnership in April of 2004, and this dissociation has been determined by the Court to be a wrongful dissociation.” When instructing the jury on the cause of action for wrongful dissociation, the court instructed the jury that the elements of the existence of the contract (partnership agreement) and St. Alphonsus’s breach by wrongfully dissociating had already been established, and the jury need only decide the amount of damages proximately caused by that breach. In the damages instructions, the court again instructed the jury, “The Court has already determined that Saint Alphonsus’s dissociation from the partnership was wrongful” and that if MRIA was damaged the jury should award an amount that will reasonably and fairly compensate MRIA “for any benefit of the bargain that the evidence proves they have lost and was proximately caused by Saint Alphonsus’s wrongful dissociation from the partnership.”

“An erroneous instruction is prejudicial when it could have affected or did affect the outcome of the trial.” Garcia v. Windley, 144 Idaho 539, 543, 164 P.3d 819, 823 (2007). In this case, the court’s erroneous instructions regarding wrongful dissociation were prejudicial in two respects. First, the court instructed the jury that St. Alphonsus had wrongfully dissociated, and the jury need only determine the amount of damages proximately caused by such wrongful dissociation. In the special verdict, the jury found that MRIA had been damaged by that wrongful dissociation. The jury awarded damages, which were not separated by cause of action. Second, instructing the jury at the beginning of the trial that “the Court has already determined as a matter of law” that St. Alphonsus had breached the partnership agreement when it dissociated and instructing the jury at the conclusion of the evidence that the “facts are not in dispute” that St. Alphonsus’s dissociation “has been determined by the Court to be a wrongful dissociation” could have affected the jury’s determination on MRIA’s other causes of action.

Two of the items of evidence introduced by MRIA were internal memoranda from the investment banking firm Shattuck Hammond. It had been retained to review various options under consideration by St. Alphonsus regarding its relationship with MRIA. One memorandum was dated August 22, 2001 (August Shattuck memorandum), and the other was dated September 25, 2001 (September Shattuck memorandum).

The August Shattuck memorandum included the following:

SARMC [St. Alphonsus] has been exploring ways to exit MRIA but has met resistance from the other general partners, particularly the physicians, and from Jack Floyd, the recently appointed CEO of MRIA. (Reasons for this resistance are discussed later in the' memorandum.) From the correspondence provided, SARMC is frustrated with the situation and is strongly considering simply withdrawing from MRIA and competing with *490existing MRI facilities on its own campus after the end of the one-year non-compete agreement. SARMC has been advised by counsel that this option would likely engender litigation with MRIA.

Alternatives Considered by St. Alphonsus

Presently SARMC is considering a number of alternatives for achieving their goal of ending the non-compete associated with their ownership in MRIA so that they can partner with SARG to provide MRI services on the St. Alphonsus campus and in the surrounding community. As mentioned previously, under the terms of the non-compete, SARMC must wait one year after exiting the general partnership before competing in magnetic resonance imaging within 100 miles of Boise. In addition, there are “wrongful” termination provisions entitling the MRIA to damages in the event that SARMC exits the partnership for the purposes of competing with MRIA after the end of the non-compete. We are awaiting the actual partnership agreement to analyze the wrongful termination provisions in more detail.

Option A: Withdrawal from MRIA

If SARMC’s withdrawal from MRIA is not deemed wrongful, SARMC would be entitled to the liquidation value of then-portion of the investment and, after a period of one year, would be able to compete in the Boise market. (It has been reported that DMR offered to accept $2.5 million to vote to waive the non-compete agreement and allow SARMC to open other centers.) Givens Pursley [St. Alphonsus’s counsel] believes that there would likely be litigation as to whether the termination was wrongful and that there may be a risk of St. Alphonsus breaching its fiduciary responsibility to the LPs. Under this scenario SHP would not receive a success fee. (Emphases added.)

The September Shattuck memorandum included the following:

The following is an overview of the options under consideration by SARMC with regard to negating its non-compete. These options have been reviewed with Givens Pursley, counsel to SARMC, and we have included their thoughts on the potential litigation involved with each alternative.

Option A: Withdrawal from MRIA

If SARMC’s withdrawal from MRIA is not deemed wrongful, SARMC would be entitled to the liquidation value of their portion of the investment and, after a period of one year, would be able to compete in the Boise market____ Givens Pursley believes that there would likely be litigation as to whether the termination was wrongful and that there may be a risk of St. Alphonsus breaching its fiduciary responsibility to the LPs. Under this scenario SHP would not receive a success fee.

Current Status

It is our understanding that St. Alphonsus would prefer Option D (Negotiated transaction with DMR). However, management has become quite weary from years of debate on this matter and is leaning toward terminating its interests in MRIA receiving the liquidation value for its shares and competing in one year. SARMC has informed other members of MRIA that they will not support future growth of MRIA as long as there are no plans to deal with SARMC’s strategic goals of partnenng with GSR. (Emphases added.)

MRIA’s counsel questioned St. Alphonsus’s chief executive officer (CEO) extensively about St. Alphonsus’s withdrawal from the partnership and about the memorandum stating that the withdrawal would likely engender litigation with MRIA. The CEO testified that she believed St. Alphonsus could rightfully dissociate under RUPA. She was asked, “[S]o, are you telling this jury that the — that you could withdraw without breaching the Partnership Agreement in 2004?” She answered, “I believe that Idaho law said that Saint Al’s could withdraw from this agreement.” Prior to asking the next question, MRIA’s counsel stated, “We’ll talk about Idaho law and your interpretation of Idaho law in a while.” During the CEO’s continued examination on the following day, she was asked, “It’s fail- to say that you *491didn’t understand how the Idaho Code played into this issue of withdrawal?” She answered, “No. I understood that there was an Idaho statute that would allow us to withdraw.” When asked what statute it was, she answered, “I think it’s called RUPA.”

The court’s instructions that the dissociation was wrongful as a matter of law coupled with the Shattuck memoranda could have caused the jury to disbelieve other testimony by the CEO. The district court acknowledged that her belief as to the legality of the dissociation would be relevant to the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. When the court’s erroneous instructions are considered with other evidence such as the above-quoted statements from the Shattuck memoranda, the erroneous instructions could have affected the jury’s determination of other causes of action.

B. Did the District Court Err in Submitting to the Jury the Issue of Whether the Partnership Agreement Contained a Definite Term?

As mentioned above, MRIA alleged its claim of wrongful dissociation under two theories. The second theory was that the partnership agreement was for a definite term and St. Alphonsus dissociated prior to the expiration of that term. Dissociation can also be wrongful if a partner withdraws by express will “[i]n the case of a partnership for a definite term ..., before the expiration of the term.” I.C. § 53-3-602(b)(2). The parties disagreed as to whether the partnership agreement had a definite term.

In ruling on the parties’ motions for summary judgment on the wrongful dissociation claim, the district court did not address the alternative theory that the dissociation occurred before the expiration of the partnership’s definite term. The court submitted that issue to the jury, and the jury found “that Saint Alphonsus has breached the Partnership Agreement by dissociating before the end of the partnership term.” On appeal, St. Alphonsus does not challenge the jury’s finding. Rather, it alleges that the district court committed error by submitting the issue to the jury.

MRIA contends that St. Alphonsus cannot raise this issue on appeal because the district court never ruled on it. In response, St. Alphonsus argues that it “moved for summary judgment on MRIA’s claim of wrongful dissociation based on a definite term, and the trial court declined to so order, thus effectively denying the motion and leaving the claim in the case for trial.” The district court did not address the issue on the cross motions for summary judgment. MRIA had one cause of action for "wrongful dissociation alleged under two theories. Having granted summary judgment to MRIA on one theory, the court apparently did not see any need to address the alternate theory. Even though an issue was argued to the court, to preserve an issue for appeal there must be a ruling by the court. De Los Santos v. J.R. Simplot Co., Inc., 126 Idaho 963, 969, 895 P.2d 564, 570 (1995). St. Alphonsus never obtained a ruling by the district court on the alternative theory for wrongful dissociation. Likewise, St. Alphonsus did not object to the trial court’s jury instructions submitting the issue to the jury. By failing to object, St. Alphonsus cannot raise the issue on appeal. Jones v. Crawforth, 147 Idaho 11, 19-20, 205 P.3d 660, 668-69 (2009) (where party failed to request during jury instruction conference that a non-party be placed on the verdict form, the failure to include the nonparty on the verdict form could not be raised on appeal). “This Court does not review an alleged error on appeal unless the record discloses an adverse ruling forming the basis for the assignment of error.” Ada County Highway Dist. v. Total Success Invs., LLC, 145 Idaho 360, 368-69, 179 P.3d 323, 331-32 (2008).

St. Alphonsus argues, “Saint Alphonsus also renewed this argument post-trial, explaining that ‘[a]s a matter of law, the MRIA partnership was not a partnership for a term, and it was an error in law to submit this issue to the jury.’ ” It is too late to raise an alleged error in the jury instructions in a post-trial motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial. Bates v. Seldin, 146 Idaho 772, 775-76, 203 P.3d 702, 705-06 (2009). St. Alphonsus has not alleged on appeal that the *492district court erred by denying the post-trial motions. Because St. Alphonsus did not obtain a ruling by the district court on the issue of whether the dissociation was wrongful because it occurred prior to the expiration of the definite term of the partnership and because it did not timely object to the submission of that issue to the jury, we will not consider the issue on appeal. However, because we remand this case for a new trial, the issue of whether the partnership was for a definite term and, if so, whether St. Alphonsus dissociated prior to the expiration of that term will have to be determined in further proceedings.

C. Did the District Court Err in Admitting into Evidence a Memorandum that Included a Reference to Legal Advice Received by St. Alphonsus?

St. Alphonsus contends that the district court erred in admitting into evidence the September Shattuck memorandum mentioned above. This memorandum is a later version of the August Shattuck memorandum, also discussed above. St. Alphonsus challenges only the admission of the September Shattuck memorandum. MRIA counters that St. Alphonsus failed to object to the admission of the memorandum at trial, and therefore cannot raise the issue on appeal. In response, St. Alphonsus asserts that it was not required to object at trial because it “filed two motions in limine to exclude from evidence the portions of the Shattuck Hammond memo that summarized its lawyer’s legal advice” and the district court “twice categorically denied” the motions. According to St. Alphonsus:

On February 6, 2007, the court summarized Saint Aphonsus’s privilege argument and held that it was “unable to find that Saint Aphonsus has proven the Shattuck Hammond Memo is privileged and therefore any references to the Shattuck Hammond Memo and the Memo itself will not be stricken.” On the eve of trial, the court likewise rejected the second motion in limine to the extent it was addressed to the claim of attorney-client privilege, stating that it had “previously addressed the admissibility of this Shattuck Hammond Memorandum” and held that it “was admissible because Saint Aphonsus had failed to prove the Memo was subject to the attorney-client privilege.” The district court thus had twice categorically denied Saint Aphonsus’s motions to exclude portions of the memo based on attorney-client privilege.

St. Aphonsus’s argument misstates the record.

In connection with its motion to seek punitive damages, MRIA’s briefing and affidavits referred to the September Shattuck memorandum. St. Aphonsus moved to strike from the briefs and affidavits references to the memorandum, contending that it was subject to the attorney-client privilege and contained double-hearsay. During oral argument on the motion, St. Aphonsus’s counsel clarified the requested relief by stating, “[W]e’re not trying to preclude the whole document. We want to preclude the references to ‘Givens Pursley’ and we want to preclude the references to the ‘scorched earth.’ ” In its memorandum decision entered on February 6, 2007, the district court ruled that St. Aphonsus had failed to prove that the memorandum was subject to the attorney-client privilege. The court explained as follows:

Having reviewed the Shattuck Hammond Memo and the arguments by Saint Aphonsus, the Court is unable to find that Saint Aphonsus has proven the Shattuck Hammond Memo is privileged and therefore any references to the Shattuck Hammond Memo and the Memo itself will not be stricken. Shattuck Hammond was hired by both Givens Pursley and directly by Saint Aphonsus, the Shattuck Hammond Memo was turned over to MRIA by a Shattuck Hammond representative, and there is testimony in the record that the document was prepared by Shattuck Hammond directly for Saint Aphonsus. Additionally, the Court will find the Shattuck Hammond Memo is itself subject to the business records exception.

The court concluded by denying the motion to strike “for purposes of the motions presenting [sic] before the Court, however, this issue can be revisited as discovery in this litigation progresses.” Thus, the court did *493not, by any stretch of the imagination, categorically deny the claim that the memorandum, or parts of it, were covered by the attorney-client privilege. It merely held that St. Alphonsus had failed to prove its claim of attorney-client privilege in connection with its motion to strike, but the matter could be revisited.

On June 5, 2007, St. Alphonsus filed a motion in limine seeking to redact portions of the September Shattuck memorandum. In its supporting memorandum, St. Alphonsus stated that it “now seeks the Court’s Order, in limine, finding the portions of the Shat-tuck Hammond Memorandum referring to Givens Pursley LLP’s analysis and the ‘scorched earth’ language is not admissible into evidence at trial and precluding MRIA from referring to Saint Alphonsus’ withdrawal from MRIA as the ‘scorched earth’ scenario or approach.” St. Alphonsus contended that the references to Givens Pursley’s analysis were protected by the attorney-client privilege and that references to the “scorched earth” scenario were hearsay and prejudicial.

The motion in limine was scheduled for hearing on July 2, 2007, along with 29 other motions in the ease. Time for argument was understandably short. St. Alphonsus’s counsel began by stating that there were some “sensitive” phrases in the memorandum that should be stricken. The district court asked, ‘Your argument goes to the — to the author of that and how in any way, shape, or form that can be an admission by — by your folks?” St. Alphonsus’s counsel responded, “Yes. I wanted to talk to you sometime about the admissibility — maybe redacting of parts of that memorandum, to excise those parts that we don’t think are admissible.” He added that “our papers” will reveal “why it is that we believe some of the information in that memorandum is inflammatory, prejudicial, and inadmissible.” When MRIA’s counsel responded to the motion in limine, he talked solely about the “scorched earth” scenario mentioned in the memorandum, arguing that it was admissible. In rebuttal, St. Alphonsus’s counsel talked only about the “scorched earth” statement in the memorandum, arguing that it was hearsay and that there was nothing showing that anyone from St. Alphonsus or its counsel used that phrase. The district court did not announce how it would rule, but took the matter under advisement.

On July 30, 2007, the district court entered its memorandum decision granting the motion in limine. The district court identified the issue as follows: “Saint Alphonsus asks the Court to preclude MRIA from referring to Saint Alphonsus’ dissociation from MRIA as the ‘scorched earth’ scenario and finding portions of the Shattuck Hammond Memorandum inadmissible at trial.” It identified what St. Alphonsus wanted stricken as follows:

The language in dispute is located in a portion of the Memorandum wherein Finnerty and Appleyard provide an overview of the contemplated options apparently being considered by Saint Alphonsus with regard to the non-compete provision contained in the MRIA Articles of Partnership. The Memo reads in relevant part, “SARMC has referred to this as their ‘scorched earth scenario.’ ”

The district court then wrote:

The Court previously addressed the admissibility of this Shattuck Hammond Memorandum with respect to MRIA’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint asserting a claim for punitive damages. Based upon the record before the Court at that time, the Court held the Shattuck Hammond Memo was admissible because Saint Alphonsus had failed to prove the Memo was subject to the attorney-client privilege and because the Memo is itself subject to the business records exception. Memorandum Decision, February 6, 2007.

Based upon the record presently before the Court, including having reviewed the documents attached to