Opinion ID: 1911789
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Parties Intended Partnership to Continue

Text: We reject Harley's argument that the partnership was dissolved upon his voluntary withdrawal under § 67-439(1) because we conclude that the parties' agreement gave the remaining partners a right to continue the business. Although section 11 of the partnership agreement is titled Dissolution or Termination of the Partnership, the reference to dissolution in the title merely reflects the original UPA rules. Those rules mandated a partnership's dissolution after a voluntary withdrawal or death of a partner. [32] But what is relevant under the 1998 UPA is whether the parties agreed the business could continue. Three separate provisions of the partnership agreement show that Don and Harley intended to allow the partnership to continue. First, section 3 provides that the partnership  shall continue until dissolved by mutual agreement or by the terms of this agreement. In section 14, the parties explicitly agreed that termination of the partnership would occur only upon two events: (1) the remaining partner(s) do not elect to purchase the interest of the retiring, deceased or legally incapacitated partner or (2) the partners mutually agree to dissolve the partnership. Finally, subparagraph (c) of section 11 provides: In the event of the withdrawal . . . the remaining partner(s) shall have the right to continue the business of the partnership. . ., but they shall pay to the retiring partner . . . the value of such partner's interest in the partnership as provided in [Section 12]. We conclude that the agreement gave the remaining partners a right to continue the business despite the withdrawal of a partner. So the default rule of dissolution under § 67-439(1) did not apply.