A n a m e n d e d c o m p la in t w a s f ile d o n J u n e 2 9 , 2 0 0 4
. 1 B y O rd er o f S ep te m

be r 29 20 06 , B il l Koe ne m an an d B il l Koe ne m an C on stru ct io n C om pany w er e 2 v oluntari ly

n on suit ed , and

aren o lo ng er

p arti es to th is law suit , o r th is a pp ea l. 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

ATJAC KSON April 21, 201 0 S es sio n SHE RRY TANNER v. WH IT ECO, L.P. an d ORANGECO , L.P. D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C h a n ce ry C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o. C H - 04- 1248- 2 A rnol d B . G ol di n, Judge

N o. W 2009- 01265- C O A - R 3- C V - F i l ed M ay 17, 2010

T hi s cas e i nvol ves t he ques t i on of w hetherA ppel l ee e nt i t i es are p art ner s hi ps under T ennes s ee l aw . A ppel l antappea l s t he t r i al cour t ’ s or der , w hi ch found thatA ppel l ee e nt i t i es we r e n o tp a r t n e r s h i p s . F i n d i n g n o e r r o r , we a f f i r m. Tenn. R . A pp. P. 3. A ppe al as of R i ght ; Judgm ent of

t he C hancery C ourt A f f i rm ed J. S TEV EN S TAFF ORD , J
. , del i ver ed the opi ni on of the C our t , i n w hi ch D AV I D R. F ARMER , J ., and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J
. , j oi ned. K en d ra H
. A rm str o n g , C o rdo v a, T en n esse e, fo r th e a p p ell an t, S h erryT an n er. J a mes M
. H i vn e r , M e mphi s , Ten ne s s e e , fo r t he a pp e l l e e s , W hi t e c o, L. P. a nd O r a ng e c o, L. P. OP I NI ON O n J une 28, 2004, A ppel l antSher r yT anner( “M s . T anner ”) f il ed a com pl ai ntand r eques tfor r es t r ai ni ng or der i n t he Shel by C ount y C hance r y C our t
. T he def endant s named 1 i n t he compl ai ntw er e N or m an V ann Thom as , Sr

. , B i l l K o en em an, B i l l K oeneman C ons t ruct i on C om pany , L
. L
. C

. , W hi t eco Li m i t ed Par t ner s hi p, and O range co Li m i t ed Par t ner s hi p. B yhercompl ai nt , M s . T anner s ought enfor cement of a pa r t ner s hi p agr eement

2 and a trus tagr eement
. Speci fi cal l y , M s . T anneraverr ed:

1. On J u l y1 7 , 1 9 9 8 , [ M s . Ta n n e r ] e n t e r e d i n t o a g ener al-2- p a r t n e r s h i p a g r e e me n twi t h

. . . Or a n g e c o , u n d e rt h e n a me of D e s tin P a rt n e rs h ip

.... 2. D es t i n Par t ner s hi p w as or gani zed t o devel op and mar ket re sid e n tial re a l p ro p e rty . P u rsu a n t to th e D e stin P a rtn e rs h ip Ag r e e me n t , [ M s . Ta n n e r ] wa s t o r e c e i v e a p e r c e n t a g e o f i n c o me w hi ch.

. . O r angec o r ece i ved fr om the sal e of r eal pr oper t yow ned jo in tly b yD e f

e n d a n ts
.... 3. O n J une 29, 1 9 9 9
. . . W hi t eco e nt er ed i nt o a trus tagr eement w i t h [M s . T anner ] , w hi ch tr ans fer red i nt o a trus tfort he equa l benef i t o f [M s . T anner ] and.

. . W hi t eco a fi fty( 50% ) per cent in te re s t in B ro w n s v ille -S t. E lm o S h o p p in g C e n te r, L .L .C

..... * * * 5. D efe ndant s , N or m an V ann Thom as , Sr

. , O r angec o, and W hi t eco ha ve fa i l ed and r efus ed t o ful l yper form undert he D esti n P artne rship A g ree m en t and h av e o n lyp aid [ M s. T an n er] a sm a ll p o rtio n o f

th e m o n e y d u e to h e r u n d e r th e D e stin Par t ner s hi p A gr eement
. Speci fi cal l y , [M s . T anner ] ha s r e c ei ved l es s t han one hundr ed thous and dol l ar s ( $100, 000
. 0 0) of the m o n e y d u e a n d o w in g to h e r un d e r th e D e stin P a r tn e rsh ip A gr eementand t he t rus t agr eement
. Pl ai nt i ff be l i eves thats he is o w e d o v e r o n e m illio n d o lla rs .... N or m an V ann Thom as , Sr

. w as a r es i dentof Shel byC ount y , and had f ourchi l dr en: No r ma n Va n n T h o ma s , J r . , Ca t h e r i n e M a n e s s , E l i z a b e t h T h o ma s , a n d Ro b e r tT h o ma s . On J ul y16, 1998, N or m an V ann Thom as , Sr

. fi l ed a c ert i fi cat e of l i m i t ed part ner s hi p for O r angec o, L
. P. w i t h t he Tennes s ee Sec r et aryof St at e. S o m et i m e af t ert he fi l i ng of the cert i fi cat e forO r angec o, N or m an V ann Thom as , Sr

. r eques t ed hi s daught erC ather i ne M anes s ( w ho w or ked for her father ) t o pl ace the O r angec o cert i fi cat e i n t he fi l e ca bi net , and a d v ise d h e r th a t h e w a s d o in g e sta te p lan n in g a n d th a t sh e a n d h e r sib lin g s h a d a n in ter e st in th e lim ited p a rtn e rsh ip

. O n D e c e m b e r 3 0 , 1 9 9 8 , N o rm a n V a n n T h o m a s, S r. f iled a c e rtific a te of l i m i t ed part ner s hi p forW hi t eco, L
. P. w i t h the Tennes s ee Sec r et aryof St at e. A s w i t h t he O r angec o cert i fi cat e, N or m an V ann Thom as , Sr

. al s o as ked hi s daught ert o fi l e the W hi t eco, c e rt if ic a te , a n d in d ic a te d to h e r t h a t th e c h ild re n a ls o h a d a n in te re s t in W h ite c o . N or m an V ann Thom as, S r. d ie d on J ul y10, 2007. Pr i ort o thei rfather ’ s death, t he re c o rd in d ica tes th a t n o n e o f N o rm a n V a n n T h o m a s, S r.’s c h ild re n h a d a n yd e a lin g s w ithO rang ec o, L
. P
. and Wh it ec o, L
. P
. areth e so le App el le es in th is a pp ea l. 3 -3- O r angec o, orw i t h W hi t eco. H ow ever , aft er N or m an V ann T hom as , Sr

. ’ s death, a che ck for $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 w a s w ritten to a tto rn e yS tev e V e sc o v o , as e sc ro w a g e n t f o r O ra n g e c o . T h is amount w as dr aw n fr om t he ac countof Tul i p C r eek, L
. L
. C

. , and each of t he Thom as chi l dr en s i gned a r ece i ptand w ai veri n w hi ch t hey acknow l edged bei ng i nt er es thol der s i n O r angec o, a n d in W h ite c o . E a c h o f th e c h ild re n a c k n o w led g e d th a t th e f u n d s w o u ld b e u se d to r ei m bur s e fune r al expens es i ncurr ed by R ober t T hom as for hi s father ’ s funer al

. O n orabout A u g u st 1 5 , 2 0 0 7 , R o b e rt T h o m a s r e c e iv e d a c h e c k f ro m th e law f

irm o f S tev e V e sc o v o in th e a m o u n t o f

$ 1 5 ,0 0 0 a s re im b u rse m e n t. O n N ovember1, 2007, a s ugges t i on of death w as fi l ed w i t h the tr i al cour t
. B ycons ent order of Janu ary17 , 20 08 , t he E st at e of N orm an V ann T ho m as, S r. w as subst i tuted as a par t y - defe ndant

. R ober tT hom as w as named as t he admi ni s t r at or of hi s father ’ s es t at e and, on J anuary24, 2008, he fi l ed an ans w er on behal f of t he E s t at e. O n the s ame day , W hi t eco, a n d O ra n g e c o a lso f

iled a jo in t an sw e r. O n N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 8 , the E sta te f iled a m o tio n to di s m i s s for l ack of s ubj ect
- m at t er j ur i s di ct i on. Speci fi cal l y , t he E s t at e averr ed t hatt he tr i al c o u rt lac k e d ju risd ictio n d u e to M s. T a n n e r’s a lleg e d f a ilu re to re v iv e th e law su it i n acc or dance w i t h T enn. C ode A nn. §30- 2- 320. B yO r derof D ece m ber5, 2008, the Est at e of N or m an V ann Thom as , Sr

. w as vol unt ar i l y nons ui t ed. Subse quent l y , O r angec o and W hi t eco fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s , w hi ch mot i on w as d en i ed byO r derof M ar ch 16, 2009. O n t he 3 s ame day , t he tr i al cour thel d an evi den t i aryhear i ng t o det erm i ne w hetherthe r emai ni ng defe ndant s, O rangeco a nd W hi t eco, w er e val i d par t ner s hi ps underT ennes s ee l aw and, speci fi cal l y , w hetherN orm an V ann T ho m as, S r. ’s chil dren w ere partners i n either of these en ti ti es. F o ll o w ing this he aring , o n M arc h 2 8 , 2 0 0 9 , the tri al co u rten tered its fin al ord er, w hich order pr ov i des, i n rel evan tpart , as fol l ow s:

[M s . T anner ] al l eges t hat N or m an V ann T hom as , Sr

. w as i n par t ner s hi p w i t h hi s chi l dr en. . . . A t t he hear i ng on M ar ch 16, 2009, [M s . T anner ] pr es ent ed no t es t i m onyt o t hi s C our tpr ovi ng a w ritten p a rtn e rsh ip a g re e m e n t o r a n o ra l p a rtn e rsh ip agr eement
. [M s . T anner ] as ks t hi s C our tt o i m pl yt he exi s t ence of a pa r t ner s hi p bas ed on the fa ctual evi dence pr es ent ed t o t he C our t
. “[T] he e x ist en ce of a part ner s hi p m aybe i m pl i ed fr om t he ci r cumst ance s w her e i tappea r s t hatt he i ndi vi dual s i nvol ved have e nt er ed i nto a b us i nes s r el at i ons hi p forpr ofi t , combi ni ng t heir propert y , l abo r, ski l l , exp eri ence, orm on ey . ” B ass v. B ass, 8 1 4 S

. W
. 2 d 3 8 , 4 1 (T en n . 1 9 9 1 ). T h e p arti es d o n o t dispu te th at N o rm an V an n T hom as, S r.-4- w a s a p a rtn e r i n O r a n g e c o , L .P . an d W h itec o , L .P . T h e o n ly q u esti o n then is w h ethe r an yo f M r. T h o m as’ c h il d ren w ere p a rtn e rs in t hese ve ntur es. T he ev i den ce i s that duri ng his l i fet i m e, the chi l dr en of N or m an V ann Thom as , Sr

. t ook no a c tio n s th a t w o u ld su g g e st th a t th e y w e re p a rtn e rs w ith th e ir father. C athe r i ne M annes s w as advi s ed byherfatherof the e x is te n c e o f

th e p a rtn e rsh ip s a n d th a t h e w a s d o in g e sta te pl anni ng. A ft er t hei r father ’ s death, at w hi ch t i m e the chi l dr en bel i eved theyw er e the bene fi ci ar i es of hi s es ta t e, t he chi l dr en si gn ed a d ocu m ent w hich r efl ect ed that th e yw ere “i nter est hol der s ” i n O r angec o, L
. P. and W hi t eco, L
. P. E ven the att orney w ho draft ed the do cum ent di d n ot r efer t o them as partners. T h is C o u rt d o e s n o t h a v e a u th o rity to c re a te a p a rtn e rsh ip w here o ne does notexi s t
. U nderthe t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s , t he C our tfi nds thatbas ed on the evi d ence p re se n ted a t th e e v id e n tiary he a rin g o n M a rc h 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 , this C ou rthas no eviden c e t o p repond erat e t hat the D efen dan t s, O ra n g e co L im ited P a rtn e rsh ip a n d W h itec o L im ited P a rtn e rsh ip w er e T ennes s ee par t ner s hi ps . T he l aw s ui t i s her ebydi s m i s s ed. O n A pr i l 24, 2009, M s . T an n er f i l ed a mot i on, as ki ng t he courtt o m ake a ddi t i onal fi ndi ngs of fa ctort o al t eroramend i t s j udgm ent
. I n r es pons e, the t ri al c o ur tent er ed an amendm entt o i t s fi nal or deron M ay11, 2009. T h e relev ant por t i on of the amendm ent provides: B as ed upon t he evi dence pr es ent ed, t he C our tfi nds t hat

none of the chi l dr en of N or m an V ann T hom as , Sr

. w er e l i m i t ed p artne rs i n eith er W h it ec o , L
. P
. o r O ran g ec o , L
. P
. , an d that there w er e no otherpar t ner s i n ei t herof these a l l eged pa r t ner s hi ps bes i des N or m an V ann T hom as , Sr

. A s s uch, nei t herO r angec o, L .P . n o r W h itec o , L .P . w e re lim ited p a rtn e rsh ip s p u rsu a n t to T ennes s ee l aw , as t her e cannot be a par t ner s hi p w her e onl yone p erso n is i n v o lved

. T en n . C o d e A n n . § 6 1 -2-1 0 1 (8). M s . T annerappea l s and r ai s es tw o i s s ues forr evi ew as s t at ed i n herbr i ef: 1. W hethert he tr i al courterr ed i n fi n d ing thatno l i m i t ed par t ner s hi p exi s t ed?-5- 2. W hethert he tr i al cou rt err ed i n fi nd i ng t hat R ob ertT ho m as, N or m an V ann Tho m as, J r . , E l i zabe t h T hom as , and C ather i ne M anes s w er e notl i m i t ed l i abi l i t ypar t ner s i n W hi t ec o, L
. P. or O ra n g e c o , L .P .? B eca us e thi s cas e w as t r i ed by t he courts i t t i ng w i t houta j ury , w e r evi ew t he ca s e de novo upon t he r ecor d w i t h a pr es um pt i on of corr ectnes s of the fi ndi ng s of fa ctbythe tr i al cour t
. U nl es s t he evi dence pr eponder at es agai ns t t he fi ndi ngs , w e mustaff i r m , abs enterr or o f l a w. See T en n . R
. A p p . P
. 1 3 (d). W ith resp ec t to the tr ial co u rt ' s co n clus ion s o n m att ers of law or on m i xed qu est i on s of fact and law , ho w ever, ou r r eview i s de novo w i th no p re s u m p tio n o f

c o rr e c tn e s s . See B ow den v. W ard , 2 7 5 S

. W
. 3 d 9 1 3 , 9 1 6 (T en n . 2 0 0 0 ); N as h-Putnam v. Mc Cloud , 9 2 1 S

. W
. 2 d 1 7 0 , 1 7 4 (T en n . 1 9 9 6 ); T en n . R
. A p p . P
. 1 3 (d). It is a lso w e ll se ttl e d th a t th is C o u rt' s re v iew is l im ited to th e a p p e llate re c o rd a n d it i s i n c u mb e n tu p o n t h e a p p e l l a n tt o p r o v i d e a r e c o r d t h a ti s a d e q u a t e f o ra me a n i n g f

u l r e v i e w. T e n n . R . A p p . P . 2 4 ( b )

. H e r e , th e re c o rd c o n sis ts o n lyo f th e tec h n ica l re c o rd . T h e re is nei t hera t r ans cr i pt , nor a T enn. R
. A pp. P. 24( c) s t at ementof the evi dence

. A s t hi s C our thas often st at ed, “i n the absence o f a t ranscr i pt orst at em ent of t he ev i den ce, w e m ust c o n c lu siv e lyp re su m e th a t ev e ryf a c t ad m is s ib le u n d e r th e p lea d in g s w a s f o u n d o r sh o u ld have be en found f

avor abl yt o t he appe l l ee. ” In re : R o c k w e ll , 673 S. W
. 2d 512, 516 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. 1983) ( ci t i ng W il s on v. H af ley , 1 8 9 T e n n . 5 9 8 , 2 2 6 S .W .2 d 3 0 8 (1 9 4 9 ); K yr it s is v. Vi er on , 5 3 T en n . A p p . 3 3 6 , 3 8 2 S

. W
. 2 d 5 5 3 (19 6 4 )). B ecause there i s no tr anscri pt, no r a Ten n. R
. A pp . P
. 24 (c) , t his C ou rtm ust concl usive ly p r es um e the fol l ow i ng, r el evantfac t s as found bythe tr i al courti n i t s fi nal o rd e r: O n J ul y16, 1998 , N or m an V ann Thom as , Sr

. had fi l ed

w i t h t he S ecr et ary of S t at e of T ennes s ee a C ert i fi cat e of Li m i t ed Par t n e r s h i p f

o rOr a n g e c o , L. P.
. . . . So me t i me a f t e rt he fi l i ng . . . N orm an V ann T ho m as, S r. request ed C at heri ne M aness t o pl ace t he ce r t i fi cat e i n the fi l i ng cabi net and advi s ed hert hat he w as doi ng es t at e pl anni ng and thats he and her s i bl i ngs had an i nt er es ti n t he l i m i t ed part ner s hi p. O n D ece m ber 30, 1998, N o rm a n V a n n T h o m a s, S r. h a d f iled w ith th e S e c re tar y o f S tate of Tennes s ee a C er t i fi cat e of L i m i t ed P art ner s hi p forW hi t eco, L .P . N o rm a n V a n n T h o m a s, S r. re q u e ste d C a th e rin e M a n e ss to pl ace t he ce rt i fi cat e i n t he fi l i ng cabi netand aga i n advi s ed her t hathe w as doi ng es t at e pl anni ng and t hat s he and hers i bl i ngs had an i nt er es ti n t he l i m i ted p artner s hi p. She had no furt her-6- d i s c u s s i o n s wi t h h e rf a t h e rc o n c e r n i n g Or a n g e c o , L. P. or W hi t e c o, L. P. Pr i ort o the death of N or m an V ann Thom as , Sr

. , [none of hi s chi l dr en] had anyr el at i ons hi p t o O r angec o, L
. P. orW hi t eco, L
. P. A ft ert he dea t h of N or m an V ann T hom as , Sr

. , a che ck w as w r i t t en [t o t he] es cr ow agentforO r angec o, L
. P..
. . . [E ach of N or m an V ann Thom as , Sr

. ’ s chi l dr en] s i gned a r ece i ptand w ai veron oraboutJ ul y31, 2007 i n w h ich theyacknow l edged be i ng i nt e r e s tho l de r s i n Or a ng e c o, L. P
. a nd W hi t e c o, L. P. [Each of the chi l dr en] under s t ood t hatt he funds w oul d be us ed to reim b u rse R o b e rt T h o m as f o r his fa ther’s f

u n era l. R o b ert T ho m as recei ved a chec k.

. . i n the am ou nt of $1 5, 00 0 o n A ug ust 15 , 20 07 as r ei m bu rs em ent for the f u neral exp enses. T hese funds w er e depos i t ed i nt o hi s per s onal bank acc ount
. . . . N o ot her e v id e n c e w a s p re se n ted to th e C o u rt. * * * A ft ert hei rfather’ s d ea th, atw hi ch t i m e the chi l dr en bel i eved t heyw er e the bene fi ci ar i es of hi s es t at e, t he c h il d r en s i gned a d o c u m e n t w h ich r e f

le c ted th a t th e yw e re “ in ter e st h o ld e rs” in O r angec o, L
. P. and W hi t eco, L
. P. E ven the att o r neyw ho draft ed the do cum ent di d n ot r efer t o them as partners. B as ed upon thes e fi ndi ngs of fa ct , t he tr i al cour t rea ch ed the l egal concl us i on t hat N or m an V ann Thom as , Sr

. ’ s chi l dr en w er e not par t ner s i n ei t herO r angec o, ori n W hi t eco. I n i t s amendm ent t o t he fi nal or der , t he cour t s peci fi cal l y found t hat nei t herO r angec o, nor W h it ec o w ere ac tual p artne rship s. T h is co n clus ion o f l aw w as b ase d u p o n the tri al co u rt ’s fac tual fi ndi ng t hat“ther e w er e no otherpar t ner s i n ei t her[W hit ec o orO r angec o] bes i des N o rm a n V a n n T h o m a s , S r. T he T ennes s ee R evi s ed U ni form L i m i t ed P art ner s hi p A ct , T enn. C ode A nn. §61- 2- 101 et s eq. (th e “ A c t”) se ts o u t th e re q u ire m e n ts f o r f o rm a tio n o f a li m ited p a rtn e rsh ip in T enn essee. Iti s w el l set t l ed that“peo ple w anti ng t o fo rm a l i m i t ed partnershi p cann ot j ust stu m b le in to o n e . T h e sta tu to ry re q u ire m e n ts f o r b e c o m in g a lim ited p a rtn e r a re sig n if ica n t; t he bene fi tof l i m i t ed l i abi l i t yexac t s a pr i ce. ‘ G ener al l y , l i m i t ed part ner s hi ps ar e cr eatur es of s t atute, an d st atut or ycompl i ance es t abl i s hes t hei rexi s t ence . ’ ” I n R e T a y lo r& A s s o c ., L .P
. , 249 B
. R
. 431, 467 ( E
. D
. T enn. 1997) ( quot i ng H a ye s v. F P I Nu rser y P a rtne rs 1 9 8 4 -I, N o . 9 0 -15 2 2 4 , 1 9 9 1 W L 1 0 3 4 4 7 , at *3 (9th C ir

. Ju n e 11 , 1 9 9 1 )). P u rsua n t to the statu tory-7-

s cheme, form at i on of a l i m i t ed part ner s hi p r equi r es s ever al act i ons : ( 1) t he fi l i ng of a pr oper l y exec ut ed cert i fi cat e w i t h t he Secr et aryof St at e, T enn. C ode A nn. §61- 2- 201; ( 2) t he exi s t ence of one or m or e gener al par tner s and one or m or e l i m i t ed par t ner s , T enn. C ode A nn. § 6 1 -2 -1 0 1 (8 ); a n d (3 ) a n a g re e m e n t b e tw e e n th e p a rt n e rs , I n R e : E s ta te o

f T h r e e fo o t, N o. W 2 0 0 5 -0 2 9 4 2 , 2 0 0 6 W L 3 1 1 4 1 4 7 , * 4 (T e n n . C t. A p p . N o v . 3 , 2 0 0 6 ). In th e in sta n t c a se , it is u n d isp u ted th a t N o rm a n V a n n T h o m a s, S r. f iled c e rtific a tes o f

lim ited p a rtn e rsh ip f

o r b o th O ra n g e c o a n d W h itec o w ith th e S e c re tar yo f S tate
. H o w e v e r, a s se t o u t a b o v e , f ili n g is o n ly o n e o f th e cri teri a fo r crea ti n g a p artne rship

. H ere , itis th e se co n d an d thir d crit eria tha t w ere n o t m e t. T h e E x ist en ce o f O n e o r M o re L im it ed P artne rs T enn. C ode A nn. §61- 1- 101( 6) defi nes a “par t ner s hi p” as “[a ] n as s oci at i on of tw o ( 2) orm or e per s ons t o carry on as co- ow ner s of a bus i nes s orot herunder t aki ng forpr ofi t
. . . . ” L ik e w ise , T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 6 1 -2 -1 0 1 (8 ) d e f in e s “ lim ited p a rtn e r s h ip ” a n d “ d o m e stic l i m i t ed part ner s hi p” as “a pa r t ner s hi p form ed byt w o ( 2) orm or e per s ons undert he l aw s of the s tat e o f T en n esse e, an d h av ing o n e (1 ) or m o re g en era l partne rs an d o n e (1 ) or m o re l i m i t ed part ner s . . . . ” B yi t s defi ni t i on, t her efor e, a part ner s hi p r equi r es t w o orm or e per s ons ( orent i t i es )

. Fr om t he tr i al cour t ’ s fi ndi ngs , i tappea rs th at M s. T annerdi d notpr es ent ev iden ce to es tablish tha t any o n e, othe r th an N o rm an V an n T h o m as, S r. o r his ch il d ren , w ere par t ner s i n ei t h e rOr a n g e c o o rW h i t e c o . As s e to u ti n i t s o r d e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r tf o u n d t h at nei t herO r angec o, nor W hi t eco w er e par t ner s hi ps beca us e no one othert han N or m an V ann T h o m a s , S r . w a s i n v o l v e d i n e i t h e re n t i t y. A gr eementB etw een the Par t i es A par t ner s hi p agr eementi s “.

. . anyagr eement , w r i t t en or or al , of the part ner s as t o t he a f f a ir s o f a lim ite d p a rt n e r s h i p a n d t h e c o n d u c t o f its b u s in e s s .” T e n n C o d e A n n . § 61- 2- 101( 11)

. “A lt h o u g h [the A ct] does notr equi r e a w r i t t en part ner s hi p agr eement , s ee T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 6 1 -2 -2 0 1 (b ), ‘ [ th e A c t] d o e s im p licitly p re su m e th a t a lim ited p a rtn e rsh ip w il l op era te f

ro m s o m e k ind o f a g ree m en t or u n d erstan d ing b etw ee n the p artne rs. ’” In re E s tate of

T hre ef oot , N o . W 2 0 0 5 -0 2 9 4 2 -C O A -R 3 -C V , 2 0 0 6 W L 3 1 1 4 1 4 7 , * 4 (T e n n . C t. A pp. , N ov. 3, 2006) ( quot i ng In R e T a ylor& A sso c., L .P
. , 2 4 9 B. R. 4 3 1 , 4 4 3 ( E
. D. T enn. 1997) )

. W hi l e a pa r t ner s hi p m aybe es t abl i s hed bys how i ng evi d en ce o f a w r i t t en par t ner s hi p agr eement or of an or al par t ner s hi p agr eement , w her e nei t her exi s t s , a courtm ay im p ly th e e x is te n c e o f

a p a rt n e rs h ip

. B ass v. B ass , 8 1 4 S

. W
. 2 d 3 8 , 4 1 n . 3 ( q u o t i n g 5 9 A Am. J ur . 2d , P a rtn e rs h ip , §152 ( 1987) )

. A s not ed bythe T aylor C o u rt: Iti s axi om at i c t hat busi ness ass ociat es, w hether j ointven turer s, par t ner s , or l i m i t ed part ner s , t o a mi ni m um degr ee j oi nt l yagr ee-8- t o an d u nd ers t and t he purpose, i ntent , and go al of thei r busi ness rel at i on shi p. Indeed , the p artners of a l i m i t ed p artnershi p m ust agr ee “ as t o t he af

fai r s of a l i m i t ed part ner s hi p and the conduc t of i t s bus i nes s . ” See [ T
. C

. A

. ] § 61- 2- 101( 11) ( defi ni ng a p artne rship ag ree m en t)

.
I n Re Ta y lo r& As s o c . , L. P . , 2 4 9 B .R . 4 3 1 , a t 4 4 3
. In th e in sta n t ca se , M s. T a n n e r pr o v id e d n o e v id e n c e o f a w ritten o r or a l p a rtn e rsh ip agre em en t, an d t he courtfound no evi dence of a w r i t t en oror al par t ner s hi p agr eementfor O ra n g e c o o r W h itec o . T h e se f in d in g s a re c o n c lu siv e ; th e re f o re , if a p a rtn e rsh ip e x ists in th is cas e, i t m us t be found by i nfer ence . “[T] he exi s t ence of a pa r t ner s hi p m aybe i m pl i ed fr om t he cir cum st ances w here i t app ears that the indi vidual s have e nter ed int o a b usi ness r el at i ons hi p for pr ofi t , combi ni ng t hei r pr oper t y , l abor , s ki l l , exper i ence , or m oney . ” B ass , 814 S. W
. 2d at41. T he bur den of pr oof of t he exi s t ence of a pa r t ner s hi p i s on the part yw ho a lle g e s th e p a rt n e rs h ip

. Mul lins v. Evans , 3 0 8 S

. W
. 2 d 4 9 4 , 4 9 8 (T en n . C t. A p p .1 9 5 7 ). M or eover , cl earand convi nci ng evi dence i s r equired t o es t abl i s h an i m pl i ed part ner s hi p. Mon t go m ery v. Mon t

go m ery , 1 8 1 S .W .3 d 7 2 0 , 7 2 6 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). M s. T an n er a sk ed the tri al co u rtto im p lythat O ran g ec o an d W h it ec o w ere par t nerships b etw een N or m an V ann Thom as , Sr

. and hi s chi l dr en bas ed s ol el yupon the evidence p revi ou sl yst at ed. T he tr i al cou rtrefused t o m ake suc h an i nference, and M s. T ann er now asks t his C ou rt t o r everse t he tri al cou rt ’s decis i on based u po n these s am e facts

. T ur ni ng t o t he fa ct s , i tappea r s t hatM s. T anner ’ s ar gum entfora part ner s hi p betw een N or m an V ann Thom as , Sr

. and hi s chi l dr en i s bas ed upon t hr ee act i ons : ( 1) t he fi l i ng of the cert i fi cat es of l i m i t ed p artnershi p fo r O ra n g e co an d W hit eco; ( 2) N orm an V ann T ho m as, S r.’s g iv in g th e c e rtific a tes to h is d a u g h ter , C a th e rin e M a n e ss , fo r f ili n g a n d h is s tate m e n ts t hatt he chi l dr en had an “i nt er es t ” i n t he par t ner s hi ps ; and (3) t he chi l dr en s i gni ng the r ece i pt an d w aive r ac k n o w ledg ing an in tere st i n O ran g ec o an d W h it ec o , fo ll o w ing their fa ther’s death. T he t r i al cour t found, as a m at t erof fa ct , t hateac h of the for egoi ng event s occurr ed. G iv e n th e absen ce of

a t ranscr i pt orst at em ent of t he ev i den ce, w e are bou nd byt hese fi ndi ngs . C ons equent l y , ourt as k on appea l i s t o det erm i ne w hethert he tr i al cour terr ed, as a mat t er o f law , in d ecl i ni ng t o i nfera part ner s hi p bas ed upon any , oral l , of the fa ct s as s ta te d in th e f

in a l o rd e r. F ili n g th e C e rtific a tes o f L im ited P a rtn e rsh ip I n herbr i ef, M s . T anners eems t o s ugges tthat , beca us e O r angec o and W hi t eco admi t t ed, i n t hei rans w er , t hatt he al l eged par t ner s hi ps w er e or gani zed under t he Tennes s ee-9-

L i m i t ed Par t ner s hi p A ct , t hi s s t at ementi n t he ans w ers om ehow cons t i tut es an admi s s i on t hat b o th O ra n g e c o a n d W h itec o a re , in f a c t, pa rtn e rsh ip s. W e d isa g re e . In th e f irst in sta n c e , it is w e ll s e ttle d th a t p le a d in g s a re n o t e v id e n c e . S e e , e .g ., S ta te v . R o b e rts , 755 S. W
. 2d 833, 8 3 6 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ). R eg ard less, fro m o u r re v ie w o f O ran g ec o an d W h it ec o ’s ans w er , i tappea r s t hat , atbes t , t her e w as onl yan admi s s i on t hatthe ce r t i fi cat es w er e fi l ed w i t h t he St at e–a f

actt hat t he tr i al courtfound t o be true. H ow ever , the tr i al courtdi d notgo s o f a r a s to f in d th a t th e f

ilin g o f t h e c e r t if

ic a te s , ip so fa c to , r es ul t ed i n the form at i on of a par t ner s hi p. T he t r i al cour t ’ s concl us i on w as corr ect
. A s not ed above, a part ner s hi p r equi r es atl eas tt w o par t i es . T he fi l i ng of a cert i fi cat e of l i m i t ed par t ner s hi p, s t andi ng al one, i s not suffici ent t o est abli sh a part nershi p ab sentcom pli ance w i t h the ot her st atutoryrequi rem ents
. See I n re E s tate of

T hre ef oot , N o. W 2005- 02942- C O A

- R 3- C V , 2006 W L 3114147 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. N ov. 3, 2 006) A l t hough N or m an V ann Thom as , Sr

. at t empt ed t o cr eat e a par t ner s hi p byfi l i ng t he ce r t i fi cat es , bas ed upon the tr i al cour t ’ s fi ndi ng t hatN or m an V ann T hom as , Sr

. w as t he s ol e part yi nvol ved, M r . T hom as fai l ed t o cr eat e an actual par t ner s hi p.

C ather i ne M anes s ’ R ece i vi ng and Fi l i ng the C ert i fi cat es T he fa ct t hat N or m an V ann Thom as , Sr

. gave the ce r t i fi cat es forO r angec o and W h it ec o to h is da u g h ter fo r fil ing is sim p ly n o t su ff ici en t t o fin d a p artne rship

. M o reo v er, t he fa ctt hatN orm an V ann Thom as , Sr

. inf o rm ed hi s daught ert hatt he chi l dr en had a n “i nt er es t ” i n t h e a l l e g e d p a r t n e r s h i p s i s a l s o i n s u f f i c i e n tt o f

o r m a p a r t n e r s h i p . As n o t ed above, T enn. C ode A nn. §61- 1- 101( 6) defi nes a “pa r t ner s hi p” as “[a ] n as s oci at i on of tw o ( 2) o r m o re p e rs o n s to c a rr y o n a s c o -o w n e rs o f a b u s in e s s o r o th e r u n d e rt a k in g f o r p ro f it....” Und e r t h i s d e f

i n i t i o n , a p a r t n e r mus t b e a “ c o - o wne r ” o f t h e p a r t ner s hi p. T he B ass C o u rt cl ar i fi ed this req ui r ement , s t at i ng t hat , i n or derfora part ner s hi p t o exi s ti n T ennes s ee, t he p a rties in v o lv e d m u st h a v e “ e n ter e d in to a b u sin e ss re latio n sh ip f o r p ro f it, c o m b in in g th e ir pr oper t y , l abor , s ki l l , exper i ence , orm oney . ” B ass v. B ass , 8 1 4 S .W .2 d a t 4 1 . U n d e r th is defi ni t i on, t he fa ctt hatN or m an V ann Thom as , Sr

. ’ s chi l dr en had a n “i nt er es t ” i n t he al l eged p artne rship s is sim p lyn o t suf ficien t t o p rov e tha t th eyw ere in p artne rship w ith their fa ther. T here i s no ev i den ce t hat anyof the chil dren t oo k any act i on t o co m bine theirpropert y , ski l l s, exper i ence , orm oneyw i t h t hei rfather ’ s fr om t he dat e thatt he cer t i fi cat es w er e fi l ed i n 1998 u n til th e tim e o f

N o rm a n V a n n T h o m a s , S r.’ s d e a th in J u ly o f 2 0 0 7
. R ece i ptand A cknow l edgment Fol l ow i ng t hei rfather ’ s d eat h, t he Thom as chi l dr en s i gned a r ece i ptand ac k now l edgmentconce r ni ng t he r ei m bur s ementof funds t o R ober tT hom as forfuner al e x p e n se s. M s . T a n n e r a ss e rts th a t th e c h ild re n ’s a d m iss io n th a t th e yh a d a n “ in ter e st” in W hi t eco an d O rangeco i ndi cat es a part ner s hi p betw een themsel ves and N or m an V ann T hom as , Sr

. W e di s agr ee. I n t he fi r s t i ns t ance , i ti s cl eart hatanyact i on byt he chi l dr en af t er-10-

their fa ther’s d ea th ca n n o t f o rm the b asis o f a p artne rship

. F u rth er, th e f ac t th at R o b ert T hom as w as r ei m bur s ed forhi s father ’ s funer al expens es fr om funds thatw er e des i gnat ed fo r O ran g ec o w as n o t evid en ce that R o b ert T h o m as w as a p artne r in that en ti ty
. M o reo v er, the c h il d ren b ec am e interest h o lders in the a ll eg ed p artne rship s u p o n the d ea th o f th eir fath er, as th e b en ef

ici aries o f h is E stat e. A n interest h o lder, h o w ev er, is n o t th e sa m e a s a p artne r. B as ed upon the for egoi ng, w e conc l ude thatthe tr i al courtw as corr ecti n fi ndi ng t hat t her e w as notcl earand convi nci ng evi dence i n the r ecor d fr om w hi ch t o i nfert he exi s t ence o f a p a r t n e r s h i p b e t we e n No r ma n Va n n T h o ma s , S r . a n d a n yo f h i s c h i l d r e n . T h e r e f

o r e , we a f f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e trial c o u rt. C o sts o f th is a p p e a l ar e a ss e ss e d a g a in st th e A p p e llan t, S h e r r y T a n n e r , a n d h e rs u r e t y.

_________________________________ J
. S T E VE N S T AF F OR D, J UDGE