- 26 -
contribution as provided by the act." In discussing the
partners' rights in the partnership, the 1992 State court
opinion focuses on the fact that James had made
disproportionately greater capital contributions and on
the inequity of dividing partnership profits equally before
he was repaid. The 1992 State court opinion states the
following:
Under the partnership act above [referring
to 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. � 8331] each partner is
repaid his contribution whether by way of capital
or advances to the partnership property. The
court found that James' contribution [sic] far
exceeded contributions made by Darwin. Hence it
appears that an inequity would be visited on
James if the partners share equally in profit,
however the provision allowing repayment of
advances to the partnership will level the
playing field.
* * * * * * *
After each partner is compensated for his
contribution, ie, capital advancement or property
to the partnership distribution of profits on an
equal basis would seem equitable. [Tobias v.
Tobias, No. 4583 (Ct. C.P. Dauphin County, Pa.
July 7, 1992).]
The 1997 State court opinion summarizes Pennsylvania
law as "holding that the repayment of capital investments
before distribution of any profits is an essential element
of every partnerships agreement implied as a term of law."
The 1997 State court opinion effects the 1992 State court
opinion by determining the partnership's assets and
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011