Opinion ID: 197341
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Partnership Agreement

Text: We find that the Partnership Agreement did constitute a services agreement because it contained a provision dictating that Palmer enjoyed sole responsibility for managing SHC to the benefit of both Palmer and PIN. See Koberstein, 762 F.2d at 619 (finding that S 81 governs management contracts). Nonetheless, despite PIN's assertion that the parties envisioned the use of PIN's lands to advance SHC's business activities, the Partnership Agreement neither specifically mentioned nor indirectly referenced any use of land. It merely stated that PIN would provide a $1 million Letter of Credit to secure Key Bank's Guaranteed Loan financing the purchase of SHC. The Partnership Agreement, therefore, does not fall within the parameters of S 81 because it does not constitute an agreement for services relative to Indian lands.24 Because the service that the Partnership Agreement provided for entailed the management of SHC, we briefly evaluate this Agreement in light of Altheimer, which addressed the applicability of S 81 to a management agreement. See 983 F.2d at 811. The relevant Altheimer factors indicate that the 24. As previously noted, the parties to the Partnership Agreement submitted this Agreement for the Secretary's approval pursuant to S 81. The Secretary specifically determined that S 81 did not pertain to the Agreement. -44- 44 Partnership Agreement does not fall within S 81's purview. Specifically, the Partnership Agreement did not relate to the management of a facility to be located on Indian lands, and, even if it did, the operation of such facility would not have depended in any way on PIN's legal status as a separate sovereign. See id.