UNIFORM PARTNERSHIP ACT
Act 72 of 1917
449.7 Rules for determining existence of partnership.
Sec. 7.
(Rules for determining the existence of a partnership). In determining whether a partnership exists, these rules shall apply:
(1) Except as provided by section 16 persons who are not partners as to each other are not partners as to third persons;
(2) Joint tenancy, tenancy in common, tenancy by the entireties, joint property, common property, or part ownership does not of itself establish a partnership, whether such co-owners do or do not share any profits made by the use of the property;
(3) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived;
(4) The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were received in payment:
(a) As a debt by installments or otherwise,
(b) As wages of an employe or rent to a landlord,
(c) As an annuity to a widow or representative of a deceased partner,
(d) As interest on a loan, though the amount of payment vary with the profits of the business,
(e) As the consideration for the sale of the good-will of a business or other property by installments or otherwise.
History: 1917, Act 72, Eff. Aug. 10, 1917 ;-- CL 1929, 9847 ;-- CL 1948, 449.7
Notes of Decisions
Byker v. Mannes, 641 N.W.2d 210 (Mich. 2002).
· cites it 2× “Further, the Court of Appeals emphasis upon subjective intent as being of “prime importance in ascertaining whether a partnership exists,” slip op at 2, belies the absence in the statute of even a reference to such “intent” as a factor for consideration.”
Sunseri v. Proctor, 461 F. Supp. 2d 551 (E.D. Mich. 2006).
· cites it 4× “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 449.7 (2002); Fla. Stat.”
Holmes v. Kraus (In Re Kraus), 37 B.R. 126 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1984).
“7 states in pertinent part: (4) The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were received in payment: (a) As a debt by installments or…”
Paul v. U.S. Mut. Fin. Corp., 389 N.W.2d 487 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
“MCL 449.7(4); MSA 20.7(4). Plaintiffs assert that plaintiffs purchased the business as individuals and not as a business entity.”
Miller v. City Bank & Trust Co., 266 N.W.2d 687 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
“The Uniform Partnership Act, § 7, MCLA 449.7; MSA 20.7, provides some guidelines for determining the existence of a partnership.”
Brown v. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins., 468 N.W.2d 243 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
“See Miller v City Bank & Trust Co, 82 Mich App 120 ; 266 NW2d 687 (1978); MCL 449.7; MSA 20.7. Frankenmuth also argues that the innocent-co-insured doctrine is inapplicable since H.”
Grosberg v. Mich. Nat'l Bank Oakland, 318 N.W.2d 490 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
“Rules for determining the existence of a partnership are specified in MCL 449.7; MSA 20.7: "In determining whether a partnership exists, these rules shall apply: "(1) Except as provided by section sixteen [16] persons who are not partners as to each other are not partners as to…”
Barnes v. Barnes, 94 N.W.2d 829 (Mich. 1959).
“See section 7, uniform partnership act, CL 1948, § 449.7 (Stat Ann § 20.7). The complete negation of any intent that William A.”
Martin Herman v. Jeffrey W Pickell (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Defendant relies on MCL 449.7(4), which states in pertinent part: -4- (4) The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were received in payment:…”
Jeffrey West v. Charise Spink (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“And MCL 449.7(4) states: The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were received in payment: -2- (a) As a debt by installments or otherwise,…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 449.7(4) — 3 cases
Paul v. U.S. Mut. Fin. Corp., 389 N.W.2d 487 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
“MCL 449.7(4); MSA 20.7(4). Plaintiffs assert that plaintiffs purchased the business as individuals and not as a business entity.”
Martin Herman v. Jeffrey W Pickell (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“Defendant relies on MCL 449.7(4), which states in pertinent part: -4- (4) The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were received in payment:…”
Jeffrey West v. Charise Spink (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“And MCL 449.7(4) states: The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were received in payment: -2- (a) As a debt by installments or otherwise,…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 449.7(4)(a) — 1 case
Martin Herman v. Jeffrey W Pickell (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“Defendant relies on MCL 449.7(4), which states in pertinent part: -4- (4) The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were received in payment:…”
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.