General Partnerships: Formation, Rights, and Partnership Property
Key Takeaways
- A general partnership is the association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit, formed without any formalities; sharing of profits raises a presumption of partnership.
- Under RUPA, partners share profits equally by default regardless of capital contributions, and losses follow profits; each partner has equal management rights and one vote.
- Partnership property belongs to the partnership entity, not to individual partners; a partner's transferable interest (share of profits/losses and distributions) is personal property, but management rights are not transferable.
- A partner may not receive remuneration for services to the partnership absent agreement (except for winding up), and is entitled to indemnification for liabilities incurred in the ordinary course of business.
- California has adopted RUPA (Corp. Code §16100 et seq.), under which a partnership is an entity distinct from its partners.
Formation and the Profit-Sharing Presumption
A general partnership is the association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit, whether or not the persons intend to form a partnership (RUPA §202; Cal. Corp. Code §16202). No writing, filing, or formality is required — a partnership can arise by conduct, and parties can become partners without ever using the word "partnership." The single most important formation signal is the sharing of profits: a person who receives a share of the profits of a business is presumed to be a partner.
That presumption is rebutted, however, where the profits were received in payment of a debt, wages or compensation to an employee or independent contractor, rent, an annuity to a retired partner, interest on a loan, or for the sale of business goodwill — categories the bar tests by dressing up a non-partner payment as a profit share.
By contrast, the sharing of gross returns (revenue) does not by itself establish a partnership, and co-ownership of property alone — even where the co-owners share rental profits — does not create a partnership. The reason is that partnership requires co-ownership of a business, with the associated risk and management participation, not merely shared income from an asset. Because the test is functional, courts also look to whether the parties share in management and control, contribute capital or services, and intend to share losses.
The absence of a partnership agreement is no obstacle; where one exists, it governs, and RUPA's provisions operate only as default rules that fill gaps the agreement leaves open — with a short list of provisions the agreement may not waive (such as the duty of loyalty's core and the power to dissociate).
Management, Profits, Losses, and Compensation Defaults
Where the partnership agreement is silent, RUPA supplies default rules that frequently control bar answers because students assume contributions determine shares. They do not. Profits are shared equally among partners regardless of differences in capital contributed or services rendered. Losses follow profits — they are shared in the same proportion as profits, so equal profit-sharing means equal loss-sharing by default.
Thus a partner who contributes 90% of the capital and another who contributes 10% still split profits 50/50 absent an agreement otherwise; if the partners agree to a profit split but say nothing about losses, losses are borne in the profit ratio.
Each partner has equal rights in the management and conduct of the partnership business, and each partner has one vote, regardless of capital or profit share. Ordinary-course decisions are decided by a majority of the partners; decisions outside the ordinary course of business, and any amendment of the partnership agreement, require the unanimous consent of all partners.
A partner is generally not entitled to remuneration for services performed for the partnership — the partner's reward is the profit share — with the statutory exception that a partner is entitled to reasonable compensation for services rendered in winding up the partnership's business. A partner who, in the ordinary course of business or to preserve partnership property, makes a payment or advance beyond the agreed capital is entitled to indemnification and to interest on the advance, and the partnership must indemnify every partner for liabilities reasonably incurred in carrying on the business.
Partnership Property versus the Partner's Transferable Interest
Under RUPA, the partnership is an entity distinct from its partners (Cal. Corp. Code §16201), and that entity — not the individual partners — owns partnership property. Property is partnership property if it is acquired in the name of the partnership, or acquired by a partner with an indication of the person's capacity as a partner or of the existence of a partnership.
RUPA also supplies a presumption: property purchased with partnership funds is presumed to be partnership property, while property held in a partner's name without partnership-fund money and without any sign of partnership capacity is presumed to be that partner's separate property. Because the entity owns the property, a single partner has no transferable interest in specific partnership assets and cannot unilaterally sell, assign, or pledge a particular partnership asset for personal purposes; the asset can be used only for partnership purposes.
What a partner does own personally is the partner's transferable interest in the partnership, defined as the partner's share of the profits and losses and the right to receive distributions. This transferable interest is personal property and may be voluntarily assigned, or reached by a creditor through a charging order (a lien on the partner's transferable interest, under which the creditor receives the distributions the partner would have received).
Critically, transfer of the financial interest does not make the assignee a partner and does not transfer management rights, information rights, or the right to participate in the business. The assignee gets only the money; the assignor remains the partner. A creditor with a charging order likewise gets only distributions, not a voice in the partnership.
California's Adoption of RUPA and Entity Consequences
California has adopted the Revised Uniform Partnership Act, codified in the Corporations Code at §16100 et seq., which governs general partnerships formed or operating in the state. The most consequential structural choice in RUPA is entity theory: the partnership is a legal person distinct from the partners who compose it. Entity theory has practical effects that ripple through the entire subject.
The partnership can sue and be sued in its own name, can hold title to property in the partnership name, and continues as an entity even as partners come and go — RUPA replaces the older aggregate theory under which any change in membership dissolved the partnership. Instead, a partner's departure is treated as a dissociation, which does not necessarily dissolve the partnership.
Entity theory does not, however, shield general partners from liability: each partner remains jointly and severally liable for all partnership obligations, a point developed in the liability section. Entity theory also affects how partnership property is treated for creditor purposes — partnership creditors reach partnership property first, while a partner's personal creditors must use a charging order against the partner's transferable interest rather than seizing partnership assets.
For the bar, the practical takeaways are: (1) start every partnership analysis by checking the partnership agreement, because RUPA rules are defaults; (2) apply the entity concept to questions about property, suits, and continuity; and (3) remember that equal sharing of profits, equal management, and one-partner-one-vote are the governing defaults absent contrary agreement.
| Concept | RUPA Default Rule |
|---|---|
| Profit sharing | Equal among partners regardless of contribution |
| Loss sharing | Follows profits |
| Management | Equal rights, one vote per partner |
| Ordinary-course decision | Majority of partners |
| Extraordinary decision / amend agreement | Unanimous consent |
| Compensation for services | None, except winding up |
| Ownership of partnership property | The partnership entity |
| Partner's transferable interest | Personal property (profits/distributions only) |
Anna contributes $90,000 and Ben contributes $10,000 to a new partnership. Their written agreement is silent on how profits and losses are divided. The partnership earns $100,000 in profit. How is the profit divided under RUPA?
A partner assigns her entire financial interest in a partnership to a creditor. What does the assignee receive under RUPA?