Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 61-1-107 (2026)
Partnership subject to amendment or repeal of chapter
✓ current as of May 2026
A partnership governed by this chapter is subject to any amendment to or repeal of this chapter.
Acts 2001, ch. 353.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1981–2002 · leading case: Putnam v. Shoaf, 620 S.W.2d 510 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981).
Putnam v. Shoaf, 620 S.W.2d 510 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981). “T.C.A. § 61-1-107. The partner’s interest is an undivided interest, as a co-tenant in all partnership property.”
Holcomb v. Fulton (In Re Fulton), 43 B.R. 273 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1984). “§ 61-1-107 (1980). The evidence produced at the trial of this matter establishes that the trailer in question is indeed partnership property.”
McAllister v. Cherokee Valley Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n (In Re McAllister), 52 B.R. 293 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1985). “Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 61-1-107 & 61-1-109; Cultra v.”
James D. Leckrone v. James D. Walker (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “This case stands or falls on the strength of the evidence regarding the beneficial ownership of the condominium unit after 1986.”
Marika Avery v. Thomas Avery (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “Partnership Theory The trial court divided the Grundy Fund equally between the parties, specifically finding it to be marital property because it was acquired during the course of the marriage as “partnership property,” as defined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 61-1-107 (a), on the theory…”
J. Howard Gregg v. Jack Johnson (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “The parties’ stipulations included that while they were partners, Jack Johnson Motors made all payments on the Line of Credit and that after the dissolution of the Partnership in 1989, Defendant continued to make payments on the Line of Credit.”
Dickenson v. Am. Gen. Fin. (In re Capps), 135 B.R. 821 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1992). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 61-1-107 (1989). Further, whether property is owned by an individual or a partnership is primarily a matter of the intentions of the partners.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 61-1-107(a) — 1 case
Marika Avery v. Thomas Avery (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “Partnership Theory The trial court divided the Grundy Fund equally between the parties, specifically finding it to be marital property because it was acquired during the course of the marriage as “partnership property,” as defined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 61-1-107 (a), on the theory…”
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.