explaining that the Statute of Frauds does not apply to agreements to transfer property “from partner to partnership” or “from partner to partner, on behalf of the partnership”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the Statute of Frauds does not apply to agreements to transfer property “from partner to partnership” or “from partner to partner, on behalf of the partnership”
- stating that “it can be inferred that receiving a share of profits is the most important” of the five statutory partnership factors
- noting that "parties will be amply protected from fraud in identifying partnership property and the partners' respective interests therein" by the statute governing what constitutes partnership property
- stating that “it is the role of the jury to determine whether that evidence is credible”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WOLLHEIM, P. J.,
concurring.
I concur with the majority opinion’s holding that the trial court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The trial court erred because there are genuine *775 issues of material fact that must be determined by a fact-finder. For example, there are genuine issues of material fact regarding the existence of an oral partnership agreement between plaintiffs and defendants and, if an oral partnership between the parties exists, the number of acres included therein. Because there are genuine issues of material fact, I concur with the majority opinion’s conclusion that the limited judgment must be reversed and remanded.