Court Opinion

ID: 9666789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:27:31.649578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:32.659230
License: Public Domain

*841McDONALD, Judge,
dissenting:
I disagree with the majority’s holding that the individual appellants comprising partners in Virginia Partners, Ltd., are entitled to the privileges afforded to limited partners under the statutory scheme in either this state or Florida. The majority seems to have accepted exclusively the view expressed in Vulcan Furniture Manufacturing Corp. v. Vaughn, supra at 764, that the purpose of statutes relating to limited partnerships is to “encourage investing by parties having capital” and “not to assist creditors” including, presumably, those tortiously injured. While encouraging capital investment may have been the main objective for this legislation, it is clearly also designed to provide the public with notice of the “essential features of the partnership arrangement.” Hoefer v. Hall, 75 N.M. 751, 411 P.2d 230, 233 (1965).
The trial court was, I believe, correct in its determination that the partners were liable to the appellee as general partners because of both their failure to substantially comply with the statutory requirements of annual recertification in their master state, (FSA 620.02), and their failure to file the certificate of limited partnership in Kentucky. (KRS 362.095.) As the majority opinion recognizes, there was no compliance whatsoever with the Kentucky statute, KRS 362.095, and no attempt to comply with the Florida procedures until months after the appellee’s injuries were incurred. Substantial compliance cannot be predicated on such utter disregard for the mandated procedures for doing business as a limited partnership. Rodgers v. Commonwealth, 314 Ky. 496, 236 S.W.2d 270 (1951). There being no substantial compliance with the statutory requirements, the partners should be, as the trial court determined, liable to those persons injured by the partnership, as general partners.