Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448
(Code 1981, §14-8-8, enacted by Ga. L. 1984, p. 1439, § 1.)
- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1985, in paragraph (a)(1) "Code Section 14-8-10.1" was substituted for "Code Section 14-8-10A."
- For article surveying business associations developments in Georgia from mid-1980 through mid-1981 concerning partnerships and corporations, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 19 (1981).
Note to Uniform Partnership Act Subsections (a) through (e) set forth rules for determining what property is owned by the partnership. Subsections (a) through (c) provide presumptions based on whether the property is included in the partnership agreement, acquired in the partnership name or purchased with partnership funds. Subsection (d) sets forth special rules concerning property the ownership of which is customarily publicly recorded, in order to permit third parties to rely on the public record. Subsections (f) and (g) provide that the partnership may acquire property in the partnership name and state the effect of such a conveyance.
Prior Georgia Law There were no comparable provisions. Subsection (d) is generally consistent with Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. v. Alexander Equities, Inc., 246 Ga. 60, 268 S.E.2d 660 (1980) and All Florida Sand, Unincorporated v. Lawler Construction Co., 209 Ga. 720, 75 S.E.2d 559 (1953). Subsection (f), by providing that title to real property may vest in the partnership, reverses prior Georgia case law. See Hammond v. Chastain, 230 Ga. 747, 199 S.E.2d 237 (1973); Bloodworth v. Bloodworth, 226 Ga. 898, 178 S.E.2d 198 (1970).
Official UPA Subsections (a) through (e) replace the simple presumption set forth in official subsection 8(2) based on purchase with partnership funds with more specific rules for determining partnership ownership of property. Subsections (a) through (c) and (e) are based on the Alabama version of § 8, Ala. Code § 10-8-70 (Michie, 1970). Subsection (d) is based on Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. v. Alexander Equities, Inc., supra, and All Florida Sand Unincorporated v. Lawler Construction Co., supra, except that it adds the qualification concerning a third party with knowledge contrary to the public record. Subsection (f) differs from official subsection 8(3) in dispelling any doubt that the partnership may acquire and hold title to real property. This specifically reverses the holdings of cases such as Hammond v. Chastain, supra, that a partnership cannot own real property. Also, subsection (f) provides that conveyances are controlled by § 14-8-10 rather than stating that property acquired in the partnership name can be conveyed only in the partnership name. This avoids any possible conflict between §§ 14-8-8 and14-8-10. Subsection (g) is the same as official subsection 8(4).
Cross-References Conveyance of partnership property: § 14-8-10. Partners' rights in a partnership property: § 14-8-25.
- A mobile home park, acquired in the names of the individual partners without use of partnership funds, and without a "recorded statement of partnership" or writ ten partnership agreement, under O.C.G.A. § 14-8-8(c), was presumed to be the separate property of the individual partners even though it was used for partnership purposes. Harris v. Escoe (In re Woolston), 147 Bankr. 279 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1992).
- 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).
- A bank that owned a general partnership interest that owned the site in question, owned the site and, thus, was an "owner" for purposes of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. § 9607). Canadyne-Georgia Corp. v. NationsBank, 183 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 1999).
- It was error to find the existence of a partnership between a business owner and the alleged partner, as the business was not included in any partnership agreement, described in any recorded statement, or acquired in a partnership name; furthermore, without any record evidence of a settlement agreement between the two, the court also erred in finding a valid accord and satisfaction. Yun v. Um, 277 Ga. App. 477, 627 S.E.2d 49 (2006).
- 59A Am. Jur. 2d, Partnership, § 234 et seq.
CERCLA Liability of Parent, Subsidiary and Successor Corporation, 34 POF3d 387.
Citizens' Suit Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA), 55 POF3d 155.
- 68 C.J.S., Partnership, § 102 et seq.
Total Results: 2
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2005-04-26
Citation: 612 S.E.2d 284, 279 Ga. 257, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 1377, 2005 Ga. LEXIS 291
Snippet: Partnership Act support this conclusion. OCGA § 14-8-8(a) provides that property included in "any recorded
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2001-07-02
Citation: 549 S.E.2d 348, 274 Ga. 28, 2001 Fulton County D. Rep. 2056, 2001 Ga. LEXIS 538
Snippet: will be considered partnership property. OCGA § 14-8-8(a)(2). Partnership property is not subject to execution