Case Name: Stanley C. Marszalk, et al, Appellants, v. Donald C. Van Volkenburg, et al, Respondents
Court: Washington Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1979-11-19
Citations: 24 Wash. App. 646
Docket Number: No. 6620-1
Parties: Stanley C. Marszalk, et al, Appellants, v. Donald C. Van Volkenburg, et al, Respondents.
Judges: James, J., concurs.
Reporter: Washington Appellate Reports
Volume: 24
Pages: 646–651

Head Matter:
[No. 6620-1.
Division One.
November 19, 1979.]
Stanley C. Marszalk, et al, Appellants, v. Donald C. Van Volkenburg, et al, Respondents.
James J. Mason, for appellants.
Elvidge, Veblen, Tewell, Bergmann & Thorp and John Veblen, for respondents.

Opinion:
Williams, J.
This action was brought by Stanley and Gretchen Marszalk against Donald C. Van Volkenburg to recover damages for the defective design and construction of two combined residential and commercial structures built on Camano Island in Island County. In an amended complaint, Ermie Alburas, alleged to be a copartner of Van Volkenburg, and the alleged copartnership, Van Volkenburg-Alburas Architects, were joined as party defendants on the claim for defective design. Alburas and the copartnership moved for partial summary judgment dismissing them from the case. The motion was granted and the cause was then tried to the court without a jury resulting in a judgment in favor of Marszalk against Van Volkenburg. This appeal by Marszalk challenges the partial summary judgment dismissing Alburas and the copartnership. We affirm.
The uncontradicted evidence before the trial court at the time the summary judgment was granted was that in 1969, Van Volkenburg and Alburas became general partners to practice architecture under the name "Van Volkenburg and Alburas;" In 1975, the parties agreed to go their separate ways except for projects involving previous clients or public works. This agreement is evidenced by a written memorandum prepared January 10, 1975, but signed in May or June of 1977. In addition, there is evidence in affidavit form from Van Volkenburg and Alburas and in records of account showing that the partnership was restricted to former clients and public work after January 1975. On June 23, 1977, the two parties signed a formal "Dissolution of General Partnership Agreement."
From 1969 until the June 23, 1977, agreement of dissolution, the firm name of Van Volkenburg and Alburas was carried on the sign at each of the architect's offices and listed in the regular and classified sections of the telephone directory. Marszalk and Alburas never met and Marszalk did not know of the existence of Alburas until after this action was commenced.
Marszalk's principal contention is that Alburas is responsible for Van Volkenburg's negligent work because of RCW 25.04.130 which reads:
Partnership bound by partner's wrongful act. Where, by any wrongful act or omission of any partner acting in the ordinary course of the business of the partnership or with the authority of his copartners, loss or injury is caused to any person, not being a partner in the partnership, or any penalty is incurred, the partnership is liable therefor to the same extent as the partner so acting or omitting to act.
A nonacting partner such as Alburas would be bound under the rules of agency, if the acting partner, Van Volkenburg in this case, was acting within the scope of the partnership business. RCW 25.04.090, Melosevich v. Cichy, 30 Wn.2d 702, 193 P.2d 342 (1948). As was said in Swanson v. Webb Tractor & Equip. Co., 24 Wn.2d 631, 648, 167 P.2d 146 (1946):
It is a well-settled rule that the authority of a partner to act as agent for the partnership is limited to such transactions as are within the scope of the partnership business, and, conversely, that neither the partnership nor the other partners are bound by the unauthorized act of one partner in a matter not within the apparent scope of the business of the partnership.
Under the undisputed facts before the court, Van Volkenburg's actions in designing the structures for Marszalk were not "in the ordinary course of the business of the partnership"; therefore, Alburas is not responsible unless he may be bound upon some other theory.
Marszalk contends that Alburas is responsible for the judgment because the firm name was carried on the office signs and was listed in the telephone directory. This argument might be persuasive if Marszalk had relied upon the exhibition of the firm name in those ways. The rule, stated in Lowenstein v. Whitelaw, 178 Wash. 428, 431, 34 P.2d 1108 (1934), is that:
One is liable to third persons as a partner only when a partnership actually exists, or when, by his conduct, he is estopped from denying it.
Unfortunately for Marszalk, he did not know of any connection between Van Volkenburg and Alburas and, hence, there is no estoppel. Den Adel v. Blattman, 57 Wn.2d 337, 340, 357 P.2d 159 (1960).
Marszalk's remaining contentions are insubstantial.
The judgment is affirmed.
James, J., concurs.