Case Name: Patrick J. O'NEILL and Boden-Wert Real Estate USA Fonds IV, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, Appellants, v. BODEN-WERT REAL ESTATE USA FONDS I, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-05-27
Citations: 599 So. 2d 1045
Docket Number: No. 91-01361
Parties: Patrick J. O’NEILL and Boden-Wert Real Estate USA Fonds IV, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, Appellants, v. BODEN-WERT REAL ESTATE USA FONDS I, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, Appellee.
Judges: SCHOONOVER, C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 599
Pages: 1045–1046

Head Matter:
Patrick J. O’NEILL and Boden-Wert Real Estate USA Fonds IV, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, Appellants, v. BODEN-WERT REAL ESTATE USA FONDS I, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, Appellee.
No. 91-01361.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
May 27, 1992.
Patrick J. O’Neill, pro se.
John P. Milligan, Jr. of Milligan & Signo-rella, P.A., Clearwater, for appellant Bo-den-Wert.
Karen Meyer Buesing and Gary M. Schaaf of Rudnick & Wolfe, Tampa, for appellee.

Opinion:
LEHAN, Judge.
We affirm the final judgment against appellants in this suit upon a mortgage note. One of the appellants, Boden-Wert IV, is a general partner of Royal Palm Square Associates, a general partnership which is in a chapter 11 reorganization. The other is Patrick J. O'Neill, a general partner of Boden-Wert IV.
Contrary to appellants' contention, the automatic stay of proceedings against the chapter 11 partnership under 11 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. did not apply to appellants. See Bank Center Ltd. v. Papariella, 15 B.R. 64 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.1981); In re Aboussie Bros. Construction Co., 8 B.R. 302 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.1981). Liability of a general partner exists independently of partnership liability. See § 620.09(1) and 620.63, Fla.Stat. (1985). See also In re Alton, 81 B.R. 97, 99 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1987); 8 Fla.Jur.2d Business Relationships § 513, 659 (1978). Appellants apparently did not request a stay of proceedings against them pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a).
We do not find merit in appellants' additional contentions.
Affirmed.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.