(1) In determining whether a partnership exists these rules shall apply:
(a) Except as provided by section 7-60-116, persons who are not partners as to each other are not partners as to third persons;
(b) Joint tenancy, tenancy in common, tenancy by the entireties, joint property, common property, or part ownership does not of itself establish a partnership, whether such co-owners do or do not share any profits made by the use of the property;
(c) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived;
(d) The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is prima facie evidence that the person is a partner in the business, but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were received in payment:
(I) As a debt by installments or otherwise;
(II) As wages of an employee or rent to a landlord;
(III) As an annuity to a surviving spouse or representative of a deceased partner;
(IV) As interest on a loan, though the amount of payment varies with the profits of the business;
(V) As the consideration for the sale of a goodwill of a business or other property by installments or otherwise.
Source: L. 31: p. 647, § 7. CSA: C. 123, § 7. CRS 53: § 104-1-7. C.R.S. 1963: § 104-1- 7. L. 77: (1)(d)(III) amended, p. 294, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2004: IP(1)(d) amended, p. 1422, § 70, effective July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2021 · leading case:
Reid v. Pyle, 51 P.3d 1064 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
Reid v. Pyle, 51 P.3d 1064 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 3× “Defendant contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the parties had not formed a partnership with respect to the property.”
Yoder v. Hooper, 695 P.2d 1182 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 3× “Hooper next asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Hooper and Yoder entered into a partnership in late 1976 or early 1977. Again, we disagree. As the trial court correctly stated, a partnership is an association of two or more…”
Bock v. Brody, 870 P.2d 530 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “Indeed, plaintiff's compensation was addressed by written agreements with each corporation, and there is no evidence or inference from the evidence from which a jury could conclude *534 that he would be responsible for any loss.”
Wester & Co. v. Nestle, 669 P.2d 1046 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “) that dissolution is caused by “the express will of any partner when no definite term or particular undertaking is specified.”
Johnson v. Chilcott, 599 F. Supp. 224 (D. Colo. 1984).
· cites it 2× “Colo.Rev.Stat. § 7-60-107 (1973); Quier v.”
Damrell v. Creagar, 599 P.2d 262 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 2× “See § 7-60-107(1)(d), C.R.S. 1973. Plaintiff himself characterized the arrangement as a partnership, thereby admitting he considered himself to be a partner in the enterprise.”
GSI v. Hudson, No. 20CA0987 (Colo. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2021).
“See § 7-60-107(1)(b), C.R. S. 2020; Brown v. Miller , 111 Colo.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-60-107(1): 2 cases
Reid v. Pyle, 51 P.3d 1064 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
“Defendant contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the parties had not formed a partnership with respect to the property.”
Yoder v. Hooper, 695 P.2d 1182 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).
“Hooper next asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Hooper and Yoder entered into a partnership in late 1976 or early 1977. Again, we disagree. As the trial court correctly stated, a partnership is an association of two or more…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-60-107(1)(b): 1 case
GSI v. Hudson, No. 20CA0987 (Colo. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2021).
“See § 7-60-107(1)(b), C.R. S. 2020; Brown v. Miller , 111 Colo.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-60-107(1)(d): 1 case
Damrell v. Creagar, 599 P.2d 262 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979).
“See § 7-60-107(1)(d), C.R.S. 1973. Plaintiff himself characterized the arrangement as a partnership, thereby admitting he considered himself to be a partner in the enterprise.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-60-107(l)(c): 1 case
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-60-107(l)(d): 1 case
Wester & Co. v. Nestle, 669 P.2d 1046 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
“) that dissolution is caused by “the express will of any partner when no definite term or particular undertaking is specified.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.