H2O'C LTD. v. Brazos
2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1263, 114 S.W.3d 397, 2003 WL 21909774 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish the existence of a partnership-in-fact without a written agreement, the party asserting the partnership must prove by clear and convincing evidence an intent to carry on as co-owners, which includes a right to a voice in management, a sharing of net profits, and a corresponding agreement to share in the losses.
Facts:
- John O’Connor and Blaise Brazos began their association in the late 1970s or early 1980s at the University of Missouri-Columbia.
- In 1993, O’Connor and Brazos began conducting for-profit drinking water analysis consulting work together.
- In October 1993, O’Connor incorporated H20’C Ltd. with himself and his wife as the sole shareholders to handle the money received from the consulting projects.
- O’Connor was primarily responsible for preparing project budgets, negotiating contracts, and preparing final reports, while Brazos performed the lab and fieldwork.
- O'Connor occasionally referred to Brazos as a 'business partner,' including once in a letter and on other occasions overheard by third parties.
- Brazos received compensation from H20’C, had taxes withheld, was issued W-2 forms, and listed his occupation as a 'sole proprietor consultant' on his individual tax returns.
- There was no agreement, express or implied, for Brazos to share in any potential business losses; Brazos testified that he did not intend to cover any such losses.
- After their business relationship ended in March 1997, Brazos filed for unemployment benefits.
Procedural Posture:
- John T. O’Connor and H20’C, Ltd. filed a petition in replevin in a Missouri trial court against Blaise Brazos to recover business property.
- Brazos filed a counterclaim against O’Connor and H20’C, asking the trial court to declare that a partnership existed and to order an accounting of partnership assets.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of Brazos, ruling that a partnership existed and awarded him $55,036.81.
- After two prior appeals were dismissed for lack of a final judgment, O’Connor and H20’C, as Appellants, appealed the trial court’s final amended judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. Brazos is the Respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a business relationship constitute a legal partnership when there is no written agreement, no agreement to share in business losses, no joint management authority, and profits are shared as compensation for services rather than as a return on ownership?
Opinions:
Majority - Harold L. Lowenstein
No. The business relationship does not constitute a legal partnership because the evidence fails to establish the necessary intent to carry on as co-owners. The court reasoned that while sharing profits is prima facie evidence of a partnership, this inference is overcome by several countervailing factors. First, there was no agreement to share in losses, which is a critical element of a partnership. Brazos himself testified he never intended to share losses. Second, the arrangement was a sharing of gross revenues as compensation for services, not a division of net profits. The court noted that 'gross revenues are not profits.' Third, Brazos lacked a voice in management; O’Connor controlled the contracts, finances, and key business decisions through his corporation, H20’C. Finally, Brazos's own conduct, such as filing taxes as a sole proprietor and applying for unemployment benefits, was inconsistent with the status of a partner. The casual use of the term 'partner' was not sufficient to overcome the substantial evidence that no legal partnership was intended or formed.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high evidentiary burden required to prove a partnership-in-fact, especially in the absence of a written agreement. The court's decision clarifies that an agreement to share losses and a right to joint control are essential indicia of a partnership, and their absence is highly persuasive evidence that no partnership exists. The ruling also demonstrates that parties' own conduct, such as how they file taxes or what benefits they seek upon separation, can be used to defeat their own claim of a partnership. This precedent serves as a cautionary tale for individuals entering business arrangements without formalizing their relationship and responsibilities in writing.
Unlock the full brief for H2O'C LTD. v. Brazos