History:
L. 1972, ch. 210, § 1; Repealed, L. 1998, ch. 93, § 76; July 1, 1999.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Referred to in action commenced prior to enactment; partnership liability for judgment against partner. McClintock v. McCall, 214 Kan. 764, 768, 522 P.2d 343.
2. There are no filing or registration requirements to create a partnership; parties intentions determines status. In Re Johnson, 19 B.R. 371, 374 (1982).
3. Cited; rules relating to ownership of property under act relative to security interests stated and applied. City of Arkansas City v. Anderson, 242 an. 875, 752 P.2d 673 (1988).
4. Applicability of restrictions on partnership admission in partnership agreement to involuntary transfers of partnership interests examined. Temple v. White Lakes Plaza Assocs., Ltd., 15 Kan. App. 2d 771, 778, 816 P.2d 399 (1991).
5. Court lacking jurisdiction over Texas partnership which had not transacted business in Kansas; charging order; judicial sale of judgment debtor's partnership interest. Beech Acceptance Corp., Inc. v. Connell, 771 F. Supp. 1154 (1991).
6. UPA not applicable to division of property accumulated during period of void marriage. In re Marriage of Thomas, 16 Kan. App. 2d 518, 520, 523, 825 P.2d 1163 (1992).
City of Arkansas City v. Anderson, 752 P.2d 673 (Kan. 1988). “is governed, in part, by the Kansas Uniform Partnership Act, K.S.A. 56-301 et seq. K.S.A. 56-324 through 56-327 deal with a partner’s property rights in a partnership.”
In Re Johnson, 19 B.R. 371 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1982). “adopts the rule that individual partners may not exempt partnership assets.”
Gillespie v. Seymour, 876 P.2d 193 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). “205/41 [1992]) states a new partnership automatically assumes the debts of the previous partnership when there is a continuation.”
Kindergartners Count, Inc. v. DeMoulin, 249 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (D. Kan. 2003). “Kansas adopted the Uniform Partnership Act (UPA), K.S.A. 56-301 et seq. (1972), which defines partnership as “an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners of a business for profit.”
Temple v. White Lakes Plaza Assocs., Ltd., 816 P.2d 399 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991). “Additionally, RULPA itself provides that for cases not covered by its provisions, the Kansas Uniform Partnership Act (UPA), K.S.A. 56-301 et seq., should be applied.”
Old Colony Ventures I, Inc. v. SMWNPF Holdings, Inc., 924 F. Supp. 1076 (D. Kan. 1996). · cites it 2דKansas Uniform Partnership Act As its final argument for the priority of its mechanic’s lien over the original mortgage, Holland cites the Uniform Partnership Act, K.S.A. § 56-301 et seq. Holland specifically points to K.”
In Re the Marriage of Thomas, 825 P.2d 1163 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). “DOES THE UNIFORM PARTNERSHIP ACT APPLY? Alonzo first contends that, since he and Barbara were not’married, the trial court had no authority to divide their assets as if it were dissolving a marriage.”
Snodgrass v. Bloomcamp, 587 P.2d 316 (Kan. 1978). “The Uniform Partnership Act, K.S.A. 56-301 et seq., provides in pertinent part as follows: “56-318.”
Williamson v. Kay (In re Villa West Assocs.), 151 B.R. 265 (D. Kan. 1993). “The limited partnership agreement is also subject to the Kansas Uniform Partnership Act, K.S.A. 56-301 et seq., except insofar as the ULPA *267 and RULPA are inconsistent with the Villa West Associates agreement.”
Beech Acceptance Corp. v. Connell, 771 F. Supp. 1154 (D. Kan. 1991). “The court has also considered the provisions of the Uniform Partnership Act, K.S.A. 56-301 et seq., in deciding what action can be taken on Ted C.”
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.