UNIFORM PARTNERSHIP ACT
Act 72 of 1917
449.32 Dissolution; decree of court.
Sec. 32.
(Dissolution by decree of court).
(1) On application by or for a partner the court shall decree a dissolution whenever:
(a) A partner has been declared a lunatic in any judicial proceeding or is shown to be of unsound mind,
(b) A partner becomes in any other way incapable of performing his part of the partnership contract,
(c) A partner has been guilty of such conduct as tends to effect prejudicially the carrying on of the business,
(d) A partner wilfully or persistently commits a breach of the partnership agreement, or otherwise so conducts himself in matters relating to the partnership business that it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in partnership with him,
(e) The business of the partnership can only be carried on at a loss,
(f) Other circumstances render a dissolution equitable;
(2) On the application of the purchaser of a partner's interest under sections 28 or 29:
(a) After the termination of the specified term or particular undertaking,
(b) At any time if the partnership was a partnership at will when the interest was assigned or when the charging order was issued.
History: 1917, Act 72, Eff. Aug. 10, 1917 ;-- CL 1929, 9872 ;-- CL 1948, 449.32
Notes of Decisions
Band v. Livonia Assocs., 439 N.W.2d 285 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “On April 4, 1980, following a bench trial, the court ordered dissolution of the partnership based on MCL 449.32(l)(b), (c) and (d); MSA 20.32(l)(b), (c) and (d).”
Urbain v. Beierling, 835 N.W.2d 455 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
“31 and MCL 449.32. Because a partner’s right to dissolve the partnership is “inseparably incident to every partnership,” there can be no indissoluble partnership.”
Armoudlian v. Zadeh, 323 N.W.2d 502 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
“…each Partner may require for the purpose of preparing his individual income tax return for any calendar year.” 4 See MCL 449.32; MSA 20.32.”
Eastland Partners Ltd. Partners v. Vill. Green Mgmt. Co., 342 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 2× “See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 449.32 . Thus, only Brown or Lutz could move to have their partnership in JAM dissolved, thereby making Village Green’s efforts to do so by way of its motion to declare Brown sole managing partner of Eastland without a basis in Michigan law.”
Martin Herman v. Jeffrey W Pickell (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“On remand, we direct the trial court to order dissolution of the partnership pursuant to MCL 449.32, and, in the winding up of the partnership, award plaintiff, if applicable, the value of his share of the monthly net earnings owed and the value of his 10% ownership interest, as…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 449.32(l)(b) — 1 case
Band v. Livonia Assocs., 439 N.W.2d 285 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
“On April 4, 1980, following a bench trial, the court ordered dissolution of the partnership based on MCL 449.32(l)(b), (c) and (d); MSA 20.32(l)(b), (c) and (d).”
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.