- 54 -
States, 115 F.2d 283, 286 (9th Cir. 1940); State v. Elsbury, 63
Nev. 463, 467-468, 175 P.2d 430, 433 (1946).
The entity approach (as opposed to the aggregate approach)
is in accord with the clear intent of the California and Nevada
partnership law, that partnership property is a separate and
distinct category of property. Accordingly, petitioners cannot
apply the aggregate approach to conclude that the partnerships
were defrauded.
Petitioners’ argument that Jay Hoyt’s use of the
partnerships to perpetrate fraud on the partners is tantamount to
stealing from the partnerships is without merit. The record
establishes that Jay Hoyt defrauded the individual investors, not
the partnerships, of their money. As previously mentioned, the
fact that Jay Hoyt utilized the partnerships as a guise to
defraud individuals does not establish a theft on the partnership
level.
Petitioners’ argument that the partners jointly own the
partnership assets is unsupported by the law. Under California
limited and general partnership law and Nevada general
partnership law, a partner’s interest in a partnership is
personal property and the partner has no interest in specific
partnership property. See Evans v. Galardi, 16 Cal. 3d 300, 307,
546 P.2d 313, 319 (1976); Stilgenbaur v. United States, supra at
286; State v. Elsbury, 63 Nev. at 467-468, 175 P.2d at 433.
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011