Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 25.05.250 (2026)
Purchase of dissociated partner's interest
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) If a partner is dissociated from a partnership without resulting in a dissolution and winding up of the partnership business under RCW 25.05.300, the partnership shall cause the dissociated partner's interest in the partnership to be purchased for a buyout price determined pursuant to subsection (2) of this section.
(2) The buyout price of a dissociated partner's interest is the amount that would have been distributable to the dissociating partner under RCW 25.05.330(2) if, on the date of dissociation, the assets of the partnership were sold at a price equal to the greater of the liquidation value or the value based on a sale of the entire business as a going concern without the dissociated partner and the partnership were wound up as of that date. Interest must be paid from the date of dissociation to the date of payment.
(3) Damages for wrongful dissociation under RCW 25.05.230(2), and all other amounts owing, whether or not presently due, from the dissociated partner to the partnership, must be offset against the buyout price. Interest must be paid from the date the amount owed becomes due to the date of payment.
(4) A partnership shall indemnify a dissociated partner whose interest is being purchased against all partnership liabilities, whether incurred before or after the dissociation, except liabilities incurred by an act of the dissociated partner under RCW 25.05.255.
(5) If no agreement for the purchase of a dissociated partner's interest is reached within one hundred twenty days after a written demand for payment, the partnership shall pay, or cause to be paid, in cash to the dissociated partner the amount the partnership estimates to be the buyout price and accrued interest, reduced by any offsets and accrued interest under subsection (3) of this section.
(6) If a deferred payment is authorized under subsection (8) of this section, the partnership may tender a written offer to pay the amount it estimates to be the buyout price and accrued interest, reduced by any offsets under subsection (3) of this section, stating the time of payment, the amount and type of security for payment, and the other terms and conditions of the obligation.
(7) The payment or tender required by subsection (5) or (6) of this section must be accompanied by the following:
(a) A statement of partnership assets and liabilities as of the date of dissociation;
(b) The latest available partnership balance sheet and income statement, if any;
(c) An explanation of how the estimated amount of the payment was calculated; and
(d) Written notice that the payment is in full satisfaction of the obligation to purchase unless, within one hundred twenty days after the written notice, the dissociated partner commences an action to determine the buyout price, any offsets under subsection (3) of this section, or other terms of the obligation to purchase.
(8) A partner who wrongfully dissociates before the expiration of a definite term or the completion of a particular undertaking is not entitled to payment of any portion of the buyout price until the expiration of the term or completion of the undertaking, unless the partner establishes to the satisfaction of the court that earlier payment will not cause undue hardship to the business of the partnership. A deferred payment must be adequately secured and bear interest.
(9) A dissociated partner may maintain an action against the partnership, pursuant to RCW 25.05.170(2)(b)(ii), to determine the buyout price of that partner's interest, any offsets under subsection (3) of this section, or other terms of the obligation to purchase. The action must be commenced within one hundred twenty days after the partnership has tendered payment or an offer to pay or within one year after written demand for payment if no payment or offer to pay is tendered. The court shall determine the buyout price of the dissociated partner's interest, any offset due under subsection (3) of this section, and accrued interest, and enter judgment for any additional payment or refund. If deferred payment is authorized under subsection (8) of this section, the court shall also determine the security for payment and other terms of the obligation to purchase. The court may assess reasonable attorneys' fees and the fees and expenses of appraisers or other experts for a party to the action, in amounts the court finds equitable, against a party that the court finds acted arbitrarily, vexatiously, or not in good faith. The finding may be based on the partnership's failure to tender payment or an offer to pay or to comply with subsection (7) of this section.
[ 1998 c 103 s 701.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2007–2024 · leading case: Bryan W. McLelland, DDS, et ux v. Mark C. Paxton, DDS, et ux, 453 P.3d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Bryan W. McLelland, DDS, et ux v. Mark C. Paxton, DDS, et ux, 453 P.3d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW 25.05.250 declares: (1) If a partner is dissociated from a partnership without resulting in a dissolution and winding up of the partnership business under RCW 25.”
Dixon v. Crawford, Mcgilliard, Peterson, 262 P.3d 108 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “This adheres to the requirements of RCW 25.05.250. ¶ 26 There is no definitive formula for ascertaining the value of goodwill.”
Dixon v. Crawford, McGilliard, Peterson & Yelish, 163 Wash. App. 912 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “This adheres to the requirements of RCW 25.05.250. ¶26 There is no definitive formula for ascertaining the value of goodwill.”
Skinner v. Holgate, 141 Wash. App. 840 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Attorney Fees at Trial ¶49 Holgate argues that the trial court erred when it declined to award attorney fees.”
Skinner v. Holgate, 173 P.3d 300 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Attorney Fees at Trial ¶ 53 Holgate argues that the trial court erred when it declined to award attorney fees.”
Simpson v. Thorslund, 151 Wash. App. 276 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “165; (ii) The partner’s right on dissociation to have the partner’s interest in the partnership purchased pursuant to RCW 25.05.250 or enforce any other right under article 6 or 7 of this chapter; or (iii) The partner’s right to compel a dissolution and winding up of the…”
Simpson v. Thorslund, 211 P.3d 469 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “165; (ii) The partner's right on dissociation to have the partner's interest in the partnership purchased pursuant to RCW 25.05.250 or enforce any other right under article 6 or 7 of this chapter; or (iii) The partner's right to compel a dissolution and winding up of the…”
Breen v. Ethicon Inc (W.D. Wash. 2021). “14 452 , 467–68 (2000), superseded by statute on other grounds, RCW 25.05.250(2), as 15 recognized in McLelland v.”
Rodman v. Ethicon Inc (W.D. Wash. 2021). “13 452 , 467–68 (2000), superseded by statute on other grounds, RCW 25.05.250(2), as 14 recognized in McLelland v.”
Ellis v. Ethicon Inc (W.D. Wash. 2021). “452 , 467–68 20 (2000), superseded by statute on other grounds, RCW 25.05.250(2), as recognized in 21 McLelland v.”
Cornell v. SoundGarden (W.D. Wash. 2021). “due 10 Expert discovery completed August 20, 2021 September 10, 2021 b 11 Fact discovery completed by August 20, 2021 September 17, 2021 12 All motions to exclude testi- September 20, 2021 September 20, 2021* 13 mony for failure to satisfy (no change) Daubert must be filed…”
Prisco v. Moss (W.D. Wash. 2024). “Count two alleges that Defendants Moss, Pfeiffer, and Growth Central Training 16 violated RCW 25.05.250(1) when they “expelled Plaintiff from the Partnership without buying 17 out” his interest.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 25.05.250(1) — 1 case
Prisco v. Moss (W.D. Wash. 2024). “Count two alleges that Defendants Moss, Pfeiffer, and Growth Central Training 16 violated RCW 25.05.250(1) when they “expelled Plaintiff from the Partnership without buying 17 out” his interest.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 25.05.250(2) — 6 cases
Bryan W. McLelland, DDS, et ux v. Mark C. Paxton, DDS, et ux, 453 P.3d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW 25.05.250 declares: (1) If a partner is dissociated from a partnership without resulting in a dissolution and winding up of the partnership business under RCW 25.”
Dixon v. Crawford, Mcgilliard, Peterson, 262 P.3d 108 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “This adheres to the requirements of RCW 25.05.250. ¶ 26 There is no definitive formula for ascertaining the value of goodwill.”
Dixon v. Crawford, McGilliard, Peterson & Yelish, 163 Wash. App. 912 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “This adheres to the requirements of RCW 25.05.250. ¶26 There is no definitive formula for ascertaining the value of goodwill.”
Breen v. Ethicon Inc (W.D. Wash. 2021). “14 452 , 467–68 (2000), superseded by statute on other grounds, RCW 25.05.250(2), as 15 recognized in McLelland v.”
Rodman v. Ethicon Inc (W.D. Wash. 2021). “13 452 , 467–68 (2000), superseded by statute on other grounds, RCW 25.05.250(2), as 14 recognized in McLelland v.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 25.05.250(9) — 4 cases
Skinner v. Holgate, 141 Wash. App. 840 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Attorney Fees at Trial ¶49 Holgate argues that the trial court erred when it declined to award attorney fees.”
Skinner v. Holgate, 173 P.3d 300 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Attorney Fees at Trial ¶ 53 Holgate argues that the trial court erred when it declined to award attorney fees.”
Dixon v. Crawford, Mcgilliard, Peterson, 262 P.3d 108 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “This adheres to the requirements of RCW 25.05.250. ¶ 26 There is no definitive formula for ascertaining the value of goodwill.”
Dixon v. Crawford, McGilliard, Peterson & Yelish, 163 Wash. App. 912 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “This adheres to the requirements of RCW 25.05.250. ¶26 There is no definitive formula for ascertaining the value of goodwill.”
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.