Case Name: Emelina C. TELLEZ, Cesar Tellez, William Zapata, and La Fritanga, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Alejandro CALLEJAS and Nora Callejas, Appellees/Cross-Appellants
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-11-13
Citations: 683 So. 2d 175
Docket Number: No. 96-397
Parties: Emelina C. TELLEZ, Cesar Tellez, William Zapata, and La Fritanga, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Alejandro CALLEJAS and Nora Callejas, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, GERSTEN, and GREEN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 683
Pages: 175–176

Head Matter:
Emelina C. TELLEZ, Cesar Tellez, William Zapata, and La Fritanga, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Alejandro CALLEJAS and Nora Callejas, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
No. 96-397.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 13, 1996.
Alfonso Oviedo-Reyes, Miami, for appellants/cross-appellees.
Leonardo P. Mendez, Miami, for appel-lees/cross-appellants.
Before BARKDULL, GERSTEN, and GREEN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a final judgment awarding damages in an action for the dissolution of a partnership and an accounting. Based upon our review of the record, we find no merit to the issues raised on the main appeal and summarily affirm the same. As for the cross-appeal, we do find that the trial court erred in permitting the appellant partners to recoup a total of $85,409.04 as salary for their active participation in the conduct of the partnership business from 1987 to 1992. It is a well established principle of partnership law that absent a specific agreement to the contrary, a partner may not receive separate remuneration for services performed for the partnership. Sections 620.645(6), 620.8401(8), Fla.Stat. (1995); Beckerman v. Greenbaum, 439 So.2d 233, 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Gonzalez v. Smith, 66 Fla. 85, 86, 62 So. 913, 914 (1913); Unif. Partnership Act § 401(h) (1994), 6 U.L.A. 52 (1995); Unif. Partnership Act § 18(f) (1914), 6 U.L.A. 526 (1995); 59A Am.Jur.2d Partnerships § 483 (1987 & Supp. 1996); 68 C.J.S. Partnerships § 94 (1950). Here, no evidence was introduced at the trial that the partners ever had any such agreement for appellants to receive a separate salary for their services. Hence, the $85,-409.04 should have been deemed partnership profits and it should have been distributed evenly between the appellants and appellees. We therefore reverse that portion of the judgment and remand with instructions to the trial court to enter judgment in favor of appellees for their 50% share of these profits, or $42,704.52.
Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part with instructions.