History:
L. 1972, ch. 210, § 26; Repealed, L. 1998, ch. 93, § 76; July 1, 1999.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Cited; disposition of partnership interests under charging orders examined. City of Arkansas City v. Anderson, 12 Kan. App. 2d 490, 498, 749 P.2d 505 (1988).
2. Cited; charging order (K.S.A. 56-328) creating lien when served as superior to assignment constituting prior unperfected security interest noted. City of Arkansas City v. Anderson, 242 Kan. 875, 882, 891, 752 P.2d 673 (1988).
3. Applicability of restrictions on partnership admission in limited partnership agreement (K.S.A. 56-1a101 et seq.) to involuntary transfers of partnership interests examined. Temple v. White Lakes Plaza Assocs., Ltd., 15 Kan. App. 2d 771, 779, 816 P.2d 399 (1991).
In Re Drimmel, 108 B.R. 284 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1989). · cites it 2ד” Kan. Stat.Ann. § 56-326. The debtors concede a sole proprietor’s interest in his or her business includes “a right to receive any remaining property” “after the property of the estate is utilized to pay superior allowed claims and interests.”
City of Arkansas City v. Anderson, 752 P.2d 673 (Kan. 1988). “K.S.A. 56-326 provides: “A partner’s interest in the partnership is his or her share of the profits and surplus, and the same is personal property.”
City of Arkansas City v. Anderson, 749 P.2d 505 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). “” K.S.A. 56-326 states: “A partner’s interest in the partnership is his or her share of the profits and surplus, and the same is personal property.”
Temple v. White Lakes Plaza Assocs., Ltd., 816 P.2d 399 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991). “A partner’s interest in the partnership is his or her share of the profits and surplus, K.S.A. 56-326. In a limited partnership, the partner’s interest is a share of the profits and losses and the right to receive distributions of partnership assets.”
Wellsville Bank v. Nicolay, 638 P.2d 975 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982). “” K.S.A. 56-326 defines the nature of a partner’s interest as his or her share “of the profits and surplus, and the same is personal property.”
Beech Acceptance Corp. v. Connell, 771 F. Supp. 1154 (D. Kan. 1991). “A partner cannot assign his right to specific partnership property without the consent of the other partners.”
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.