Medved v. Novak (In Re Novak), 97 B.R. 47 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1987). · cites it 9דThus, K.S.A. 56-321 by its terms does not apply to him, and does not apply to Novak insofar as he was not a partner of Rantoul or Mid-States Exploration 1978.”
Arnett v. Weiner (In Re Weiner), 95 B.R. 204 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1989). · cites it 4דsection 56-321(a) states: Partner accountable as a fiduciary, when, (a) Every partner must account to the partnership for any benefit, and hold as trustee for the profits derived by him or her without the consent of the other partners from any transaction connected with the…”
Kindergartners Count, Inc. v. DeMoulin, 249 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (D. Kan. 2003). · cites it 2דK.S.A. 56-321 (repealed 1999). This section provided that a partner must account to the partnership for any benefit, and hold as trustee any profit, derived without consent of the other partners from any transaction connected with formation, conduct, or liquidation of the…”
Duggins v. Bratt (In re Bratt), 489 B.R. 414 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2013). · cites it 2ד1997) (Under Kansas law, the statutory provision delineating partners' accountability as fiduciaries, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 56-321 (a) (1994) did not create a technical or express trust and therefore partners are not fiduciaries for purposes of § 523(a)(4)).”
Schreibman v. Zanetti-Gierke (In Re Zanetti-Gierke), 212 B.R. 375 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1997). “The statutory provision delineating partners’ accountability as fiduciaries in § 56-321(a), Kan. Stat. Ann. (1994), does not create a technical or express trust.”
Schaefer v. Winden (In Re Winden), 120 B.R. 570 (Bankr.D. Colo. 1990). · cites it 2דIn re Novak, supra (“In this case, plaintiffs have cited the Court no cases which impose a fiduciary duty above and beyond that created by K.S.A. 56-321” Id. at 60 ). Therefore, to determine whether Schaefer and Winden, as partners, stood in a similar fiduciary capacity to one…”
— K.S.A. § 56-321(a) — 4 cases
Arnett v. Weiner (In Re Weiner), 95 B.R. 204 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1989). “section 56-321(a) states: Partner accountable as a fiduciary, when, (a) Every partner must account to the partnership for any benefit, and hold as trustee for the profits derived by him or her without the consent of the other partners from any transaction connected with the…”
Medved v. Novak (In Re Novak), 97 B.R. 47 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1987). “Thus, K.S.A. 56-321 by its terms does not apply to him, and does not apply to Novak insofar as he was not a partner of Rantoul or Mid-States Exploration 1978.”
Schreibman v. Zanetti-Gierke (In Re Zanetti-Gierke), 212 B.R. 375 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1997). “The statutory provision delineating partners’ accountability as fiduciaries in § 56-321(a), Kan. Stat. Ann. (1994), does not create a technical or express trust.”
Schaefer v. Winden (In Re Winden), 120 B.R. 570 (Bankr.D. Colo. 1990). “In re Novak, supra (“In this case, plaintiffs have cited the Court no cases which impose a fiduciary duty above and beyond that created by K.S.A. 56-321” Id. at 60 ). Therefore, to determine whether Schaefer and Winden, as partners, stood in a similar fiduciary capacity to one…”
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.