Opinion
Rehearing Denied Sept. 25, 1973.
Inman, Flynn & Coffee, Robert D. Inman, Melvin A. Coffee, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Helmick, Conover & Burkhardt, Frederic K. Conover, II, Gary J. Ceriani, Denver, for defendants-appellees.
SMITH, Judge.
This appeal stems from an accounting ordered by this court in Beeler v. H & R Block of Colorado, Inc., 487 P.2d 569 (not officially published). There, we held, Inter alia, that there was sufficient consideration to support a service contract between Beeler and plaintiffs, (H & R Block). The case was remanded with the following instruction;
'(T)hat the amounts due Beeler under the 1966 contract be calculated and judgment be rendered thereon.' On remand, the plaintiffs, against whom defendants by their counterclaim sought an accounting, filed a motion seeking an accounting to determine all sums due from the plaintiffs to defendants to the date of the accounting hearing on remand. They also moved to join additional parties considered by plaintiffs to be indispensible to a complete resolution of the conflict. On this appeal, plaintiffs urge that the trial court erred in denying these motions. In addition, plaintiffs assert that the trial court's finding of fact and conclusion of law are inadequate. We disagree and affirm.
I.
The basis for plaintiff's first two assignments of error is that because an action for an accounting is an equitable proceeding, the parties are entitled to complete relief on any and all issues in contention between them, even if the issues were not raised by the pleadings. It appears that after the trial on the respective rights and liabilities of the parties, the plaintiff corporations were dissolved. Plaintiffs now contend that in order to render complete relief between the parties, the trial court should determine the legal effect of these dissolutions on the accounting, and that in order to do so, additional parties must be joined. Although plaintiffs sought this relief by motion, the more appropriate procedural tool is a supplemental complaint for an accounting from the period from the first trial until the date of the new hearing which we previously ordered. It is within the discretion of the trial court to determine whether to entertain such a supplemental request. Beberman v. Frisch, 242 Minn. 12, 64 N.W.2d 132. That rule is applicable to the present case. As noted in Beberman, supra, this does not leave plaintiffs without remedy. They may seek a further or additional accounting subsequent to the entry of judgment in the instant case. The trial court did not err in denying plaintiffs' motions.
II.
Plaintiffs further contend that the findings of the court were inadequate. The findings issued by the court were sufficient to give this court an understanding of the basis of the trial court's decision. Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Co. v. Bond, 156 Colo. 433, 399 P.2d 793.
Judgment affirmed.
ENOCH and PIERCE, JJ., concur.