Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Uniform Partnership Act."
(Code 1981, §14-8-1, enacted by Ga. L. 1984, p. 1439, § 1; Ga. L. 2017, p. 774, § 14/HB 323.)
The 2017 amendment, effective May 9, 2017, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, substituted "This chapter shall be known and may be cited" for "This chapter may be cited" at the beginning of this Code section.
- Summary judgment was properly granted to sublessors, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-56, in a sublessee's multi-claim action arising from agreements entered into between the parties with respect to concert promotion at a particular venue, which was done in order to satisfy a minority business enterprise participation minimum which was imposed by the city; based on the terms of the various documents signed between the parties, there was no legal partnership pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 14-8-1 et seq., and no joint venture as the sublessors did not share control of the concert promotions, did not share profits or liabilities, the terms used in the agreements were not dispositive on the issue, and the sublessee's assistance was titular only. Jerry Dickerson Presents, Inc. v. Concert/Southern Chastain Promotions, 260 Ga. App. 316, 579 S.E.2d 761 (2003).
- Under the Georgia Uniform Partnership Act of 1984, O.C.G.A. § 14-8-1 et seq., the public filing of a joint venture's statement of partnership conclusively established the existence of a partnership; thus, the condemned property was partnership property and could not be used to satisfy a judgment lien against a partner of the joint venture. Accolades Apts., L.P. v. Fulton County, 279 Ga. 257, 612 S.E.2d 284 (2005).
Statement of partnership is a form of express agreement and the public filing of a joint venture's statement of partnership conclusively establishes the existence of a partnership; this conclusion is supported by O.C.G.A. §§ 14-8-8(a) and14-8-10.1(f) and (g). Accolades Apts., L.P. v. Fulton County, 279 Ga. 257, 612 S.E.2d 284 (2005).
Cited in Bagwell v. Trammel, 297 Ga. 873, 778 S.E.2d 173 (2015).
- 59A Am. Jur. 2d, Partnership, § 1et seq.
- What amounts to a joint adventure, 48 A.L.R. 1055; 63 A.L.R. 909; 80 A.L.R. 312; 95 A.L.R. 857; 138 A.L.R. 968.
Validity and effect of chattel mortgage on partner's interest in firm, 54 A.L.R. 534.
Partnership as distinguished from employment (where rights of parties inter se or their privies are concerned), 137 A.L.R. 6.
Construction and application of Revised Uniform Partnership Act, 70 A.L.R.6th 209.
Construction and application of Revised Uniform Partnership Act, 70 A.L.R.6th 209.
Total Results: 15
Court: Ga. | Date Filed: 2015-10-05T00:00:00-07:00
Citation: 297 Ga. 873, 778 S.E.2d 173, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 671
Snippet: Bagwell filed the complaint in this action seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment, cancellation of the deed, a constructive trust, dissolution of the joint venture under OCGA § 14-8-32 (a) (3)-(5) of the Georgia Uniform Partnership Act, see OCGA § 14-8-1 et seq., and an accounting under OCGA § 14-8-22 (4) consistent with the Redemption Formula. In May 2013, the Trammels’ sons agreed to quitclaim the property back to their parents. Bagwell thereafter filed several amendments to his complaint reflecting
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2015-04-10T00:00:00-07:00
Citation: 331 Ga. App. 671, 770 S.E.2d 899
Snippet: prosecution. (Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Armstrong v. State, 325 Ga. App. 33, 35-36 (1) (752 SE2d 120) (2013). “The testimony of a single witness is generally sufficient to establish a fact.” OCGA § 24-14-8. 1 Armed robbery occurs “when, with intent to commit theft, [a person] takes property of another from the person or the immediate presence of another by use of an offensive weapon, or any replica, article, or device having the appearance of such
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2011-07-12T00:00:00-07:00
Citation: 713 S.E.2d 920, 310 Ga. App. 735, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 2350
Snippet: theories of liability authorizing the recovery of such damages. We decide nothing, therefore, about whether disgorgement of ill-gotten gains might be an appropriate remedy for any unjust enrichment in this case. [5] The Uniform Partnership Act, OCGA § 14-8-1 et seq., itself provides explicitly that disgorgement sometimes is an appropriate remedy for the misconduct of a partner. See OCGA § 14-8-21(a) ("Every partner must account to the partnership for any benefit, and hold as trustee for it any profits
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2011-07-07T00:00:00-07:00
Citation: 714 S.E.2d 262, 310 Ga. App. 637, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 2343
Snippet: court erred by granting Jordan's motion for summary judgment on her counterclaim for wrongful dissolution of the partnership. Because Moses has raised genuine issues of fact with regard to this claim, we agree. The Uniform Partnership Act, OCGA § 14-8-1 et seq., provides that the dissolution of a partnership can occur in a variety of ways, including "[b]y the express will or withdrawal of any partner." OCGA § 14-8-31(a)(2). "Upon dissolution of a partnership the partners cease to be associated in
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2006-01-13T00:00:00-08:00
Citation: 277 Ga. App. 477, 627 S.E.2d 49, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 173
Snippet: ownership interest in the liquor store, the absence of any written or recorded partnership agreement, and the absence of evidence that Yun and Yi operated the business as a partnership within the meaning of Georgia’s Uniform Partnership Act (OCGA § 14-8-1 et seq.), the trial court’s dual findings that the liquor store was “acquired and operated as a partnership” and that Yi as a “partner” of Yun was “entitled to receive a share of the proceeds” from the sale of the business are lacking in evidentiary
Court: Ga. | Date Filed: 2005-04-26T00:00:00-07:00
Citation: 612 S.E.2d 284, 279 Ga. 257, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 1377
Snippet: at 30, 549 S.E.2d 348 (citations omitted). [5] Id. [6] Accolades Apts., 252 Ga.App. at 502, 556 S.E.2d 552. [7] Accolades Apts., 267 Ga.App. at 199, 598 S.E.2d 910. [8] Ghee v. Kimsey, 179 Ga.App. 446, 447, 346 S.E.2d 888 (1986). [9] OCGA §§ 14-8-1 et seq. [10] We need not decide whether an executed but unfiled statement of partnership is conclusive proof that a partnership exists. [11] This is subject to OGCA § 14-8-8(d), which provides that "[r]eal property ... held of public record otherwise
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2003-03-14T00:00:00-08:00
Citation: 579 S.E.2d 761, 260 Ga. App. 316, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 1006
Snippet: (1991). [5] Youngblood v. Gwinnett Rockdale &c. Svc. Bd., 273 Ga. 715, 717-718(4), 545 S.E.2d 875 (2001). [6] (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Pakwood Indus v. John Galt Assoc., 219 Ga.App. 527, 529(1), 466 S.E.2d 226 (1995). [7] See OCGA § 14-8-1 et seq. [8] Accolades Apts. v. Fulton County, 274 Ga. 28, 29, 549 S.E.2d 348 (2001). [9] Id. at 30, 549 S.E.2d 348; Kissun v. Humana, Inc., 267 Ga. 419, 420, 479 S.E.2d 751 (1997). [10] Boatman v. George Hyman Constr. Co., 157 Ga.App. 120, 123
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1996-12-18T00:00:00-08:00
Citation: 479 S.E.2d 474, 224 Ga. App. 88, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 13
Snippet: As authority, the court cited Baker v. Schneider, 210 Ga. 493 ,80 S.E.2d 783 (1954), and various New York cases including Judelson v. Weintraub, 55 A.D.2d 906, 390 N.Y.S.2d 455 (1977). In 1984, Georgia adopted the Uniform Partnership Act. OCGA § 14-8-1 et seq. Various causes of dissolution of a partnership are set out in OCGA § 14-8-31(a)(1)(7). Under subsection (a)(2), dissolution is caused "[b]y the express will or withdrawal of any partner." Prior Georgia law permitted dissolution by the express
Court: Ga. | Date Filed: 1996-07-01T00:00:00-07:00
Citation: 471 S.E.2d 885, 266 Ga. 844, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 2453, 1996 Ga. LEXIS 473
Snippet: limited liability companies, and registered limited liability partnerships). [10] Since Henderson and Sevy were shareholders of a professional corporation, we need not decide whether lawyers may engage in other forms of law practice. See OCGA §§ 14-8-1 to 14-8-61 (Uniform Partnership Act); §§ 14-10-1 to 14-10-18 (Georgia Professional Association Act); §§ 14-11-100 to XX-XX-XXXX (Georgia Limited Liability Company Act). [11] OCGA § 14-7-3. [12] OCGA § 14-2-622.
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1996-01-24T00:00:00-08:00
Citation: 467 S.E.2d 590, 220 Ga. App. 6
Snippet: Hayden enumerates that the trial court erred by ruling as a matter of law that he was not entitled to recover his net capital contributions to the parties' partnerships upon dissolution in contravention of the Uniform Partnership Act (UPA), OCGA § 14-8-1 et seq. In particular, Hayden correctly asserts that OCGA § 14-8-18 makes no distinction between capital (contributions treated as equity) and advances (contributions treated as a loan) in mandating that both such forms of contribution be returned
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1995-02-07T00:00:00-08:00
Citation: 216 Ga. App. 242, 454 S.E.2d 792, 1995 Ga. App. LEXIS 88
Snippet: fees was submitted. 1. In its first enumeration of error, Ackerman claims the state court erred in granting summary judgment to Lostocco on Counts 1 through 3 of the complaint. Ackerman contends that under the Georgia Uniform Partnership Act (OCGA § 14-8-1 et seq.), Lostocco's "cash call" was an admission of the debt to it. Furthermore, Ackerman argues that under OCGA § 14-8-6, Lostocco is individually liable to it since he represented himself as a partner of APVI. We first consider Lostocco's argument
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1995-02-01T00:00:00-08:00
Citation: 216 Ga. App. 204, 453 S.E.2d 780, 95 Fulton County D. Rep. 402
Snippet: is not exclusive, and the financial interests of the limited partner may also be reached by the judgment creditor by process of garnishment. See OCGA §§ 14-8-28 (e); 14-8-6 (b). Georgia has adopted both the Uniform Partnership Act (UPA) (OCGA § 14-8-1 et seq.) and the ULPA (OCGA § 14-9A-1 et seq.). Although the limited partnership in this case is governed by the provisions of the ULPA, it is also governed by the provisions of the UPA, “except insofar as the statutes relating to such [limited] partnerships
Court: N.D. Ga. | Date Filed: 1989-07-03T00:00:00-07:00
Citation: 130 F.R.D. 469, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16604, 1989 WL 200927
Snippet: issue depends on whether under the applicable Georgia law, the right to pursue this action is vested in the Doctors Hospital partnership or in each partner individually. The answer to this question is found in the Georgia Partnership Act, O.C.G¡A. § 14-8-1, et seq. Under § 14-8-21(a) of the Act, each partner is required to “account to the partnership for any benefit and hold as trustee for it any profits derived by him without the consent of the other partners from any transaction connected with the
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1988-07-05T00:00:00-07:00
Citation: 371 S.E.2d 663, 187 Ga. App. 893, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 1004
Snippet: that of employee-employer was contemplated, he acquired an equity interest in the business. I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge McMurray joins in this dissent. NOTES [1] The parties agree that the Uniform Partnership Act (UPA), OCGA §c 14-8-1 et seq. does not control because this action was filed prior to the effective date of the Act.
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1984-03-05T00:00:00-08:00
Citation: 317 S.E.2d 249, 170 Ga. App. 405, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 1914
Snippet: certificate of authority, he might still be held liable as an ostensible partner, as "one whose name appears to the world as [a partner]. An ostensible partner shall be liable as a partner even though he has no actual interest in the firm." OCGA § 14-8-1. Appellant signed the partnership documents in June 1981; the 90-day period within which he had to make his capital contribution to Blisco or lose his partnership interest had long expired by the time the note being sued upon was executed (January