Briargate Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Carpenter
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
976 F.2d 868 (1992)
- Written by Jose Espejo , JD
Facts
In 1984 Briargate Homes was formed as a general partnership. Judith Carpenter (defendant) and her husband were made partners and gave funds to purchase units in the Briargate Condominium complex on behalf of the partnership. The bylaws of the Briargate Condominium Association (the association) (plaintiff) entitled the association to issue assessments against unit owners for maintenance of the common areas and sue for unpaid fees. As of December 1, 1988, the partnership had failed to pay assessments totaling $85,106.08. The association sued Carpenter as a general partner of the partnership for the balance of the fees owed. Carpenter contended that she believed the partnership was a limited partnership, not a general partnership. Under the Revised Uniform Partnership Liability Act (RULPA), if Carpenter in good faith believed that she was a limited partner and not a general partner, she would not be liable for the debts of the partnership. In support of Carpenter’s contention, on February 5, 1988, once Carpenter was advised she may be a general partner, Carpenter notified the other partners and the association that she was withdrawing from the partnership. The trial court held that Carpenter did not effectively withdraw from the partnership and that she was therefore liable for the debts. Carpenter appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hamilton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.