Della Ratta v. Larkin

856 A.2d 643, 382 Md. 553 (2004)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Della Ratta v. Larkin

Maryland Court of Appeals
856 A.2d 643, 382 Md. 553 (2004)

Facts

In 1969 the Trinity Joint Venture Limited Partnership (Trinity) was formed. In 1974 Trinity admitted Joseph M. Della Ratta (defendant) as a general partner, and in 1981 he became the sole general partner. Trinity had a total of 13 limited partners. Later, the partnership agreement was amended to change the name of the partnership to East Park. East Park developed a shopping center, and a mortgage was taken out on the shopping center. On March 1, 2002, Della Ratta informed East Park’s limited partners that a loan was due February 2, 2003, and that each limited partner would be required to contribute to the repayment because East Park did not have enough cash reserves to make the payment. On March 15, 2002, Barbara Larkin, Valeri Sass, Rosemary Krupnick, and the Charles K. Helferstay Residuary Trust (collectively, the withdrawing partners) (plaintiffs) wrote to Della Ratta, stating that they were withdrawing from the partnership pursuant to the Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act (RUPLA) §10-603(b) and providing the required six months’ notice of their withdrawal, which would be effective on September 29, 2002. In response, Della Ratta argued that RUPLA was inapplicable because the partnership agreement specified when the withdrawing partners could withdraw. The withdrawing partners disputed Della Ratta’s claim, and on May 24, 2002, they filed a complaint in the circuit court, seeking declaratory judgment that they had properly withdrawn from East Park. Furthermore, the withdrawing partners sought an injunction barring enforcement of the capital call claimed due on September 1, 2002. The circuit court ruled in favor of the withdrawing partners, declaring that the withdrawing partners had a statutory right to withdraw from East Park. The remaining limited partners filed a separate appeal to the court of special appeals and then filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the court of appeals.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Harrell, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership