O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 14-8-24 (2019)

Property rights of partner

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

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.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The property rights of a partner are:

(1) His rights in specific partnership property;

(2) His interest in the partnership; and

(3) His right to participate in the management.

History

(Code 1981, § 14-8-24, enacted by Ga. L. 1984, p. 1439, § 1.)

Annotations

COMMENT Note to Uniform Partnership Act This section differentiates the three property rights of a partner. Prior Georgia Law There was no comparable provision. Official UPA This section is the same as the official version.

Cross-References Partner’s management rights: § 14-8-18(5), (7) and (8). Partner’s rights in specific partnership property: § 14-8-25. Definition of partner’s interest in the partnership: § 14-8-26. Assignment of partner’s interest in the partnership: § 14-8-27. Creditor’s rights in partner’s interest in the partnership: § 14-8-28. JUDICIAL DECISIONS ANALYSIS GENERAL CONSIDERATION PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY AS INSURABLE INTEREST General Consideration Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Civil Code 1910, Code 1933, §§ 75-204, 75-206, 75-207 and former Code Sections 14-8-43 and 14-8-45, in effect prior to the 1984 repeal and reenactment of this chapter, are included in the annotations to this Code section. Individual interest of a partner in partnership assets is no more than the partner’s interest in the surplus effects of the partnership that remain after all the debts of the partnership have been discharged. Commercial Bank v. Watt, 178 Ga. 615, 173 S.E. 394 (1934) (decided under former Code 1933). Limitation on purchaser’s partnership interest. - Purchaser can acquire as against other partners no greater interest in a partnership as such than a selling partner would be entitled to upon final accounting had between the original partners. Stone v. First Nat’l Bank, 117 Ga. App. 802, 162 S.E.2d 217 (1968) (decided under former Code 1933, § 75-204). Joint-stock company contrasted. - In a joint-stock company there is no delectus personae as in an ordinary partnership. Hammond v. Otwell, 170 Ga. 832,

154 S.E. 357 (1930) (decided under former Civil Code 1910). Cited in Harris v. Escoe (In re Woolston), 147 Bankr. 279 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1992). Partnership Property as Insurable Interest Both partnership and partners have insurable interest in property of partnership. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mikell, 126 Ga. App. 640, 191 S.E.2d 557 (1972) (decided under former Code 1933, §§ 75-206, 75-207). Partner has an insurable interest in firm property which will support a policy taken out thereon for his own benefit. He has an actual, lawful, and substantial economic interest in preservation of his firm’s property. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mikell, 126 Ga. App. 640, 191 S.E.2d 557 (1972) (decided under former Code 1933, §§ 75-206, 75-207). Insurance apparently made for individual partner may be shown to have been for benefit of partnership if the parties deal on that basis, or if the entity entitled to the insurance so authorizes or ratifies the action. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mikell, 126 Ga. App. 640, 191 S.E.2d 557 (1972) (decided under former Code 1933, §§ 75-206, 75-207).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 59A Am. Jur. 2d, Partnership, § 256 et seq. C.J.S. - 68 C.J.S., Partnership, § 135 et seq.

ALR. - Duty of joint adventurers inter se in respect of acquisition or renewal of property rights or interests related to the enterprise, 62 ALR 13.

CORPORATIONS & PARTNERSHIPS

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1989–1998 · leading case: Hayden v. Sigari, 467 S.E.2d 590 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hayden v. Sigari, 467 S.E.2d 590 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “Likewise it was not error that the trial court did not charge relative to OCGA §§ 14-8-24 and 14-8-26. Hayden argues that the trial court’s failure to instruct in this regard foreclosed a jury award for damages upon the denial of his rights to partnership property as set out in…”

Prodigy Centers/Atlanta v. T-C Assocs., 501 S.E.2d 209 (Ga. 1998). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 14-8-24. 3. From the above, it can be seen that, where statutorily defined, a “partnership interest” denotes the financial aspect of partnership, and we limit our analysis accordingly.”

Harris v. Escoe (In Re Woolston), 147 B.R. 279 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1992). · cites it 4× “See O.C.G.A. § 14-8-24 (1989). This section provides: The property rights of a partner are: (1) His rights in specific partnership property; (2) His interest in the partnership; and (3)His right to participate in the management.”

Stolz v. Shulman, 383 S.E.2d 559 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “The only disagreement voiced by Shulman was a statement made in his affidavit on summary judgment motions that the contingency fee cases of Stolz and Shulman (fees at issue) did not go into the new *865 partnership pot.”

Carnes v. McNeal, 479 S.E.2d 474 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “” Prior Georgia law permitted dissolution by the express will of a partner only in a partnership at will and then only upon three months notice (former OCGA § 14-8-24 (Code Ann. § 75-106)), or with the consent of all other partners (former OCGA § 14-8-90 (Code Ann.”

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.