Holmes v. Lerner
74 Cal.App.4th 442, 88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 130 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the California Uniform Partnership Act, an express agreement to share profits is not a prerequisite for the formation of a legal partnership. The controlling factor is the intent of the parties to associate as co-owners to carry on a business for profit, which can be inferred from their conduct and the surrounding circumstances.
Facts:
- Patricia Holmes and Sandra Lerner became friends in late 1993 through a shared interest in horses.
- In mid-1995, while on a trip to England, Holmes created a unique purple nail polish color by layering raspberry over black, which both she and Lerner liked.
- On July 31, 1995, at Lerner's kitchen table, they brainstormed edgy names for nail polish colors and, with input from Lerner's husband, decided on the brand name "Urban Decay."
- During this conversation, Lerner asked Holmes, "Do you think we should start a company?" to which Holmes agreed. Lerner stated, "It's going to be our baby, and we're going to work on it together."
- Immediately following their agreement, Lerner telephoned her business consultant, David Soward, and instructed him to secure the trademark for "Urban Decay" for "us."
- Holmes and Lerner then began working together on the venture, conducting market research, experimenting with colors, and participating in "board meetings" with Soward and others.
- Lerner and Soward secretly offered an ownership interest to a new hire, Wendy Zomnir, without Holmes's knowledge.
- After Holmes worked on the business for months without pay, Soward offered her a 1% ownership interest, and she was eventually told she was no longer welcome at the company.
Procedural Posture:
- Patricia Holmes filed a complaint in trial court against Sandra Lerner and David Soward, alleging breach of an oral partnership agreement and other claims.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Holmes, awarding her both compensatory and punitive damages.
- The trial court entered a judgment consistent with the jury's verdict.
- Lerner and Soward filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial court denied.
- Lerner and Soward, as appellants, appealed the judgment and the denial of their post-verdict motion to the California Court of Appeal.
- Holmes, as respondent and cross-appellant, appealed the portion of the judgment concerning joint and several liability.
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 the formation of a legal partnership under the California Uniform Partnership Act require an express agreement between the parties to share profits?
Opinions:
Majority - Marchiano, J.
No, an express agreement to share profits is not required to form a partnership. The court held that under the applicable Uniform Partnership Act (UPA), a partnership is formed when there is an association of persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit. The Legislature intentionally removed the previous statutory requirement of an agreement to "divid[e] its profits" when it adopted the UPA. The UPA treats the sharing of profits as prima facie evidence of a partnership, not as a required definitional element. The crucial factor is the intent of the parties, which is determined by their agreement, conduct, and the surrounding circumstances. Here, the words and actions of Holmes and Lerner—including their joint creation of the concept, Lerner's statement that it would be "our baby," the immediate trademarking of the name for "us," and their subsequent collaborative work—provided substantial evidence of their intent to form a partnership. The UPA itself supplies the default term that partners share profits equally if no other agreement is made.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies California partnership law by shifting the focus from a rigid, formulaic requirement of a profit-sharing agreement to a more flexible, intent-based analysis. It establishes that the conduct of the parties can create a partnership even in the absence of explicit discussions about financial splits. This provides greater protection for individuals who contribute ideas, labor, and creative energy to a new venture based on an oral understanding of co-ownership. The ruling makes it more difficult for one partner to later exclude another by claiming the initial agreement was too indefinite simply because it lacked a specific profit-sharing term.
