- 55 -
Specific partnership property is a distinct category of
property, separate from a partner’s interest in the partnership.
Stilgenbaur v. United States, supra. A partner’s personal
property interest in the partnership grants the partner a right
to his share of profits and surplus, not an ownership interest to
any particular portion of the partnership assets. Comstock v.
Fiorella, 260 Cal. App. 2d 262, 265, 67 Cal. Rptr. 104, 106
(1968). Contrary to petitioners’ assertion, under California and
Nevada partnership law, the partners do not jointly own the
partnership assets. Therefore, petitioners’ argument fails to
establish a theft on the partnership level.
The arguments presented by petitioners fail to recognize the
legal distinction between a partnership and its partners. Thus
their claim that a theft from the partners is a theft from the
partnerships is without merit and unsupported by the law.
(iii) Petitioners’ Claim That a Theft Occurred
Under State Law
Petitioners assert that Jay Hoyt’s criminal acts, for which
he was convicted under Federal law in Oregon, constitute theft
under similar Oregon statutes. Namely, Oregon Revised Statutes
(ORS): (1) Section 164.085, theft by deception; (2) section
164.170, laundering a monetary instrument; and (3) section
164.172, engaging in a financial transaction in property derived
Page: Previous 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011