Opinion ID: 849017
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: uniform partnership acts

Text: In 1917, the Michigan Legislature drafted the Michigan Uniform Partnership Act. 1917 PA 72. In this act, a partnership was defined as an association of two [2] or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit.... Id. at § 6, codified in 1929 CL 9846. Over the years, the definition has remained essentially constant. [5] At present, partnership is defined as an association of 2 or more persons, which may consist of husband and wife, to carry on as co-owners a business for profit.... M.C.L. § 449.6(1). This definition, as well as its predecessors, was modeled after the definition of partnership set forth in the 1914 UPA. See MCLS and MCLA 449.6 (Historical Notes); 1929 CL 9841; 1948 CL 449.1. In 1914, the UPA had defined a partnership as an association of two or more persons to carry on as owners a business for profit. Uniform Partnership Act of 1914, § 6. In construing § 6, courts had universal[ly] determined that a partnership was formed by the association of persons whose intent is to carry on as co-owners a business for profit, regardless of their subjective intention to be `partners.' See Uniform Partnership Act of 1994, § 202, Comment 1. In 1994, however, the UPA definition of partnership was amended by the National Conference of Commissioners. The amended definition stated that the association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit forms a partnership, whether or not the persons intend to form a partnership.  Section 202 (emphasis added). Although the commissioners were apparently satisfied with the existing judicial construction of the definition of partnership, the commissioners added the new language whether or not the persons intend to form a partnership in order to codif[y] the universal judicial construction of UPA Section 6(1) that a partnership is created by the association of persons whose intent is to carry on as co-owners a business for profit, regardless of their subjective intention to be `partners.' Section 202 (Comment 1). The commissioners emphasized that [n]o substantive change in the law was intended by the amendment of § 6. Id. To date, Michigan has not adopted the amended definition of partnership.