- 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 derivedPage: Previous 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011