Opinion ID: 22187
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Beychok as a Partner in Creative Development

Text: 35 After the district court found the presence of ambiguity, it had no difficulty eliminating membership as a partner in Creative Development as one of the possibilities of the kind of interest that Beychok acquired. And, on appeal, neither the appellants nor the appellees seriously urge that the 1986 Agreement admitted Beychok into Creative Development as a partner. Clearly it did not. As Creative correctly explains, under Louisiana partnership law (1) unanimous action by the parties is required to amend a partnership agreement for the purpose of admitting a new partner unless otherwise agreed, 30 (2) neither the number nor the identity of the partners of Creative had changed since it was formed in 1981, and (3) the 1986 Agreement was not signed by or on behalf of all four partners qua partners. 31 In short, as the unanimous consent of the partners was not evidenced in the 1986 Agreement, then as a matter of law Beychok could not have been admitted as a partner. 32 Moreover, the phrase interest in that partnership clearly eschews the contention that the sale, transfer, and assignment of such an interest somehow admitted Beychok as a partner: Memberships in partnerships are not sold, transferred or assigned; rather, persons are admitted into partnerships or made partners. Obviously, then, the first of the three possibilities ---- membership in Creative Development ---- must be eliminated. 33 36