O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Statute text
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Uniform Partnership Act."
History
(Code 1981, § 14-8-1, enacted by Ga. L. 1984, p. 1439, § 1; Ga. L. 2017, p. 774, § 14/HB 323.)
Annotations
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.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Relationship between two business entities not a partnership. - 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).
Public filing of statement of partnership establishes existence of partnership. - 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) and 14-8-10.1(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).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Am. Jur. 2d. - 59A Am. Jur. 2d, Partnership, § 1et seq.
ALR. - 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.
Notes of Decisions
McMillian v. McMillian, 713 S.E.2d 920 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “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.”
Bloise v. Trust Co. Bank of Savannah, N.A., 317 S.E.2d 249 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 4× “However, since appellant represented that he was a Blisco partner by signing the partnership agreement and certificate of authority, he might still be held liable as an ostensible partner, as "one whose name appears to the world as [a partner].”
Moses v. Jordan, 714 S.E.2d 262 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “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.”
Henderson v. HSI Fin. Servs., Inc., 471 S.E.2d 885 (Ga. 1996).
· cites it 2× “…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 14-11-1109 (Georgia Limited…”
Hayden v. Sigari, 467 S.E.2d 590 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “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,…”
Nigri v. Lotz, 453 S.E.2d 780 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Georgia has adopted both the Uniform Partnership Act (UPA) (OCGA § 14-8-1 et seq.) and the ULPA (OCGA § 14-9A-1 et seq.”
Bagwell v. Trammel, 778 S.E.2d 173 (Ga. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Six years later, while still negotiating with the Trammels’ sons to reconvey the property for the benefit of Etowah Ventures, Bagwell filed the complaint in this action seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment, cancellation of the deed, a constructive trust, dissolution of…”
Ackerman & Co. v. Lostocco, 454 S.E.2d 792 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “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.”
Accolades Apts., L.P. v. Fulton Cnty., 612 S.E.2d 284 (Ga. 2005).
· cites it 2× “11 This is subject to OCGA § 14-8-8 (d), which provides that“[r]eal property.. .held of public record otherwise than in the partnership name, the ownership of which is customarily publicly recorded, shall not be deemed to be partnership property to the prejudice of a person who…”
Larson v. Tandy Corp., 371 S.E.2d 663 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “The parties agree that the Uniform Partnership Act (UPA), OCGA § 14-8-1 et seq. does not control because this action was filed prior to the effective date of the Act.”
Yun v. Um, 627 S.E.2d 49 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “2 *482 Given the absence of documentary evidence that Yi had an 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…”
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.