With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In that case, the trial court squarely addressed the issue of whether cases brought into a partnership prior to dissolution were partnership assets. Relying on the UPA and Bracht v. Connell, 313 Pa. 397, 170 A. 297 (1933), the Melenyzer court determined that any cases in progress at the time of dissolution were partnership property and that the partners owed a fiduciary duty to each other to wind up unfinished partnership business. In Bracht, three partners began a road construction business. 170 A. at 298. The partnership dissolved, and the partners agreed on the split of some of the assets. However, two of the partners, using partnership resources and without the knowledge of the third, bid on a contract prior to dissolution. Id. at 298. The Court held that, because partn t.App.1964) (<HOLDING>); Ellerby v. Spiezer, 188 Ill.App.3d 77, 81, 92

A: holding that reconsideration of the correctness of property division was barred on appeal from the judgment enforcing that division
B: holding fees derived from pending negligence cases after the effective date of withdrawal from the partnership were subject to division between the partners
C: holding that the commission on remand can set the effective date of a rate to be the effective date of the original commission activity
D: holding that in general aedpas provisions apply to cases filed after its effective date
B.