Opinion ID: 1361168
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Dericksons' Partnership

Text: Under Tennessee law, [10] a partnership can be implied where it appears that the individuals involved have entered into a business relationship for profit, combining their property, labor, skill, experience, or money, regardless of whether the parties intended to create a partnership. Bass v. Bass, 814 S.W.2d 38, 41 & n. 3 (Tenn.1991). All partners are liable for the obligations of the partnership. TENN. CODE § 61-1-306(a). [11] Applying Bass, the JO found that the Dericksons were operating a partnership which went by several names, including Herbert Derickson Stables. The JO supported this finding with two pieces of evidence. First, he looked to the Dericksons' unequivocal admission that each was an individual doing business as Herbert Derickson Training Facility, aka Herbert Derickson Stables, aka Herbert Derickson Breeding and Training Facility. J.A. at 52 (JO Dec. at 25); see also J.A. at 75 (Ans. at 1). This admission alone would have been substantial evidence to support a finding of implied partnership under Tennessee law. Though the Dericksons did not use the word partnership, two individuals admitting that they are running the same business under the same name is such evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, Gray, 39 F.3d at 675, that the Dericksons entered into a business relationship for profit, combining their property, labor, skill, experience, or money, Bass, 814 S.W.2d at 41. However, the JO further supported his finding with several invoices that include the statements Thank you, we appreciate your business! and Thanks, Herbert and Jill Derickson. J.A. at 52-53 (JO Dec. at 25-26); see also J.A. at 283-286 (Invoices). Looking at the record as a whole, we conclude that it is clear that there is substantial evidence that the Dericksons were operating a partnership. The Dericksons argue that H. Derickson operates as a sole proprietor and that the JO ignored evidence to that effect, specifically: (1) Black's testimony that he understood the owner of the business to be H. Derickson, not J. Derickson; (2) APHIS's stipulation that Black was an employee of H. Derickson; and (3) the lack of any testimony or documentation, including tax returns, that indicated that a partnership existed. The Dericksons' argument fails. The evidence to which the Dericksons refer does not render insubstantial the evidence on which the JO relied. First, Black testified only that he understood H. Derickson to be the owner of the business that employed him. J.A. at 360 (Hr'g Tr. at 469). Just as the parties' understanding of the legal effect of their relationship is not determinative regarding whether an implied partnership exists, Bass, 814 S.W.2d at 41, Black's understanding of the ownership of the business that employed him is not substantial evidence of the legal effect of the Dericksons' relationship. Second, the Dericksons mischaracterize APHIS's stipulation that Black was employed by Herbert Derickson. J.A. at 359 (Hr'g Tr. at 468). The questions being posed to Black at the time the stipulation was made concerned his status as an employee in general. Prior to the stipulation, the nature of the business relationship between the Dericksons had not been discussed. [12] In this context, stipulating that Black was an employee of H. Derickson does not equate to stipulating that H. Derickson was operating a sole proprietorship. Third, the statement that no documentary evidence was introduced to support a finding of partnership is inaccurate. As outlined above, several invoices and the Dericksons' own answer to the complaint were used to support the JO's finding. Moreover, the fact that no tax returns or other financial documents were introduced into evidence does not diminish the evidence that is in the record. The Dericksons do not dispute the accuracy of the invoices or the admissions in the answer; instead, they simply argue that we should hold that there cannot be substantial evidence of a partnership without some evidence that directly states that the parties are running a partnership. Tennessee law does not require that specific evidence. See Bass, 814 S.W.2d at 41 (holding that a partnership can be implied from the surrounding circumstances). Therefore, we hold that the JO relied on substantial evidence to find that the Dericksons were operating an implied partnership that went by several names, including Herbert Derickson Stables.