§425-118 Actions by and against partnership
and partners. (a) A partnership may sue and be sued in the name of the
partnership.
(b) An action may be brought against the
partnership and, to the extent not inconsistent with section 425-117, any or
all of the partners in the same action or in separate actions.
(c) A judgment against a partnership is not by
itself a judgment against a partner. A judgment against a partnership shall
not be satisfied from a partner's assets unless there is also a judgment
against the partner.
(d) A judgment creditor of a partner shall not
levy execution against the assets of the partner to satisfy a judgment based on
a claim against the partnership unless the partner is personally liable for the
claim under section 425-117 and:
(1) A judgment based on the same claim has been
obtained against the partnership and a writ of execution on the judgment has
been returned unsatisfied in whole or in part;
(2) The partnership is a debtor in bankruptcy;
(3) The partner has agreed that the creditor need not
exhaust partnership assets;
(4) A court grants permission to the judgment
creditor to levy execution against the assets of a partner based on a finding
that partnership assets subject to execution are clearly insufficient to
satisfy the judgment, that exhaustion of partnership assets is excessively
burdensome, or that the grant of permission is an appropriate exercise of the
court's equitable powers; or
(5) Liability is imposed on the partner by law or
contract independent of the existence of the partnership.
(e) This section applies to any partnership
liability or obligation resulting from a representation by a partner or
purported partner under section 425-119. [L 1999, c 284, pt of §1]
Notes of Decisions
Shinn v. Edwin Yee, Ltd., 553 P.2d 733 (Haw. 1976).
· cites it 4× “In the area of capital contributions, Shinn testified that Yee told him that $206,000 was the anticipated amount required for the joint venture. Yee told him that he had already arranged for the basic and interim financing for the project with Island Federal Savings & Loan.”
Gussin v. Gussin, 836 P.2d 484 (Haw. 1992).
· cites it 4× “2d 239, 242 (1991) (quoting HRS § 425-118(a) (1985)). Thus, in the absence of any agreement between husband and wife in the ICA's Hashimoto illustration, partnership principles of law require an equal division of the marital property "where the only facts proved are the marriage…”
Epp v. Epp, 905 P.2d 54 (Haw. App. 1995).
· cites it 4× “2d 239, 242 (1991) (quoting HRS § 425-118(a) (1985)) (quoted in Tougas v.”
Schiller v. Schiller, 205 P.3d 548 (Haw. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “2d 239, 242 (1991) (quoting HRS § 425-118(a) (1985)). Therefore, if there is no agreement between the husband and wife defining the respective property interests, partnership principles dictate an equal division of the marital estate “where the only facts proved are the marriage…”
Tougas v. Tougas, 868 P.2d 437 (Haw. 1994).
· cites it 2× “2d 239, 242 (1991) (quoting HRS § 425-118(a) (1985)). Therefore, if there is no agreement between the husband and wife defining the respective property interests, partnership principles dictate an equal division of the marital estate “where the only facts proved are the marriage…”
Jackson v. Jackson, 933 P.2d 1353 (Haw. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “2d 239, 242 (1991) (quoting HRS § 425-118(a) (1985)) (quoted in Tougas v.”
Helbush v. Helbush, 122 P.3d 288 (Haw. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “2d 239, 242 (1991) (quoting HRS § 425-118(a) (1985)). Therefore, if there is no agreement between the husband and wife defining the respective property interests, partnership principles dictate an equal division of the marital estate “where the only facts proved are the marriage…”
Prell v. Silverstein, 162 P.3d 2 (Haw. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “2d 239, 242 (1991) (quoting HRS § 425-118(a) (1985)). Therefore, if there is no agreement between the husband and wife defining the respective property interests, partnership principles dictate an equal division of the marital estate “where the only facts proved are the marriage…”
Hussey v. Hussey, 881 P.2d 1270 (Haw. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “As stated in Gussin , the distribution of Marital Partnership Property under the Partnership Model is stated in HRS § 425-118(a) (1985) as follows: Each partner shall be repaid the partner’s contributions, whether by way of capital or advances to the partnership property and…”
Great Hawaiian Fin. Corp. v. Aiu, 116 F.R.D. 612 (D. Haw. 1987).
· cites it 2× “§ 425-118(c) compels a partner to charge a partnership interest on monies lent.”
Gardner v. Gardner, 810 P.2d 239 (Haw. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 425-118(a) (1985). In Malek v. Malek, 7 Haw.”
Baker v. Bielski, 248 P.3d 221 (Haw. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “2d 239, 242 (1991) (quoting HRS § 425-118(a) (1985)). Therefore, if there is no agreement between the husband and wife defining the respective property interests, partnership principles dictate an equal division of the marital estate “where the only facts proved are the marriage…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 425-118(a) — 13 cases
Gussin v. Gussin, 836 P.2d 484 (Haw. 1992).
“2d 239, 242 (1991) (quoting HRS § 425-118(a) (1985)). Thus, in the absence of any agreement between husband and wife in the ICA's Hashimoto illustration, partnership principles of law require an equal division of the marital property "where the only facts proved are the marriage…”
Epp v. Epp, 905 P.2d 54 (Haw. App. 1995).
“2d 239, 242 (1991) (quoting HRS § 425-118(a) (1985)) (quoted in Tougas v.”
Schiller v. Schiller, 205 P.3d 548 (Haw. App. 2009).
“2d 239, 242 (1991) (quoting HRS § 425-118(a) (1985)). Therefore, if there is no agreement between the husband and wife defining the respective property interests, partnership principles dictate an equal division of the marital estate “where the only facts proved are the marriage…”
Tougas v. Tougas, 868 P.2d 437 (Haw. 1994).
“2d 239, 242 (1991) (quoting HRS § 425-118(a) (1985)). Therefore, if there is no agreement between the husband and wife defining the respective property interests, partnership principles dictate an equal division of the marital estate “where the only facts proved are the marriage…”
Jackson v. Jackson, 933 P.2d 1353 (Haw. App. 1997).
“2d 239, 242 (1991) (quoting HRS § 425-118(a) (1985)) (quoted in Tougas v.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 425-118(b) — 1 case
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 425-118(c) — 1 case
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.