Opinion ID: 2570326
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hall and Moore formed a mining partnership.

Text: A partnership is defined as an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit. [20] We have previously noted that AS 32.05.010(a) consists of four key elements. [21] The first element is associational intent, which requires the existence of an agreement to combine the [partners'] property, money, effects, skill and knowledge to carry out a business enterprise. [22] Where, as here, there is no written partnership agreement, the existence of a partnership may be proven by the transactions, conduct and declarations of the parties. [23] While the parties' intent to create a partnership is typically one of the most important tests for whether a partnership exists, this is not true where the rights of third parties are involved. [24] In the absence of a written agreement, the existence of a partnership must be proven by credible evidence. [25] The second element is co-ownership of the business, which is evidenced by shared management authority and profit-sharing. [26] The third element is that the partners must be in business, [27] and the fourth is that the business must be intended to make a profit. [28] Mere co-ownership of the Marshall Dome claims is insufficient evidence of the existence of a partnership because joint tenancy, tenancy in common, tenancy by the entireties, joint property, common property, or part ownership does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the co-owners share any profits made by the use of the property, [29] but receipt of a share of business profits is prima facie evidence that the person is a partner. [30] The superior court found that Hall and Moore created a partnership in 1990 when they purchased the Marshall Dome claims in the name of Ray Moore and Joe B. Hall d/b/a/ Golden Slipper II. While there was no written partnership agreement, the record contains credible evidence that the parties acted as if they had formed a partnership. Hall testified that annual filings and payments required by the state to maintain the claims were paid in the name of Golden Slipper II. In his deposition, Hall indicated that he and Moore had assigned thirty-five percent of their interest in the claims' proceeds to two attorneys who had represented the partnership. Such an arrangement is consistent with the Uniform Partnership Act, which permits the assignment of a partner's share of the profits from a partnership. [31] Ultimately, the superior court found that this evidence supported the finding that Hall and Moore created a partnership in 1990, particularly because they had no reason to hold themselves out as partners if they were not, and because there was no evidence to contradict the existence of a partnership prior to 1993.