Helpinstill v. Regions Bank
33 S.W.3d 401, 2000 WL 1701324, 2000 Tex. App. LEXIS 7739 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A general partner is personally liable for partnership debts incurred in the ordinary course of business. An activity that is normally within the ordinary course of business, such as creating overdrafts, does not cease to be so merely because it is facilitated or disguised by another partner's separate, illegal act like a check-kiting scheme.
Facts:
- Bobby Helpinstill and Mike Brown were general partners in a computer business named MBO Computers.
- They opened a partnership bank account at Longview National Bank, with an agreement that each partner would be individually liable for any overdrafts.
- As a regular part of managing the business, Brown frequently wrote checks that resulted in overdrafts on the partnership account, which he would later cover with deposits.
- Helpinstill acknowledged that, prior to the events in question, creating overdrafts was a normal and ordinary part of MBO's business operations.
- To keep the partnership solvent and conceal its financial state, Brown began a check-kiting scheme, shuffling funds between the MBO account and accounts at other banks.
- This scheme eventually collapsed, leaving a significant overdraft of approximately $381,000 in the MBO Computers account at Longview National Bank.
- Helpinstill was unaware of Brown's illegal check-kiting activities.
Procedural Posture:
- Regions Bank, as successor to Longview National Bank, sued Bobby Helpinstill in a Texas trial court to recover the funds lost to the overdrafts.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Regions Bank.
- The trial court entered a judgment against Helpinstill consistent with the jury's verdict.
- Helpinstill (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals, with Regions Bank as the appellee.
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 partner's use of an illegal check-kiting scheme to manage partnership funds remove the underlying and customary act of creating overdrafts from the 'ordinary course of business,' thereby shielding an innocent partner from personal liability for those overdrafts?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hill
No. A partner's use of an illegal check-kiting scheme does not remove the underlying business activities from the 'ordinary course of business.' The court reasoned that Helpinstill's liability stems from the partnership debt created by the overdrafts, not the illegal method used to conceal them. The court distinguished between the act of creating overdrafts—which was an established, ordinary practice for the partnership—and the illegal check-kiting scheme, which was merely the method Brown used to facilitate and disguise that practice. Because Texas partnership law holds general partners responsible for debts incurred in the ordinary course of business, and the creation of overdrafts was such an activity for MBO, Helpinstill's personal knowledge or ratification of the illegal scheme was irrelevant to his liability for the underlying partnership debt.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the stringent liability imposed on general partners for the debts of the partnership. It establishes a critical legal distinction between an underlying business practice and an illegal method used to facilitate that practice. The court's holding signals that partners cannot use a co-partner's fraud as a shield against liability for debts arising from otherwise ordinary business activities. This places a significant burden on partners to be vigilant in monitoring partnership finances, as ignorance of a co-partner's misconduct will not absolve them of responsibility for routine business debts.
