Kyle Johnson and Dionne Johnson v. Graze Out Cattle Co.
Not available in case text (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A loan obtained by a partner in their individual or corporate capacity to provide a capital contribution to a partnership is not considered a partnership liability upon dissolution unless the partnership expressly assumes the debt. In the absence of a written agreement, partners' accounts are settled upon dissolution according to statutory rules governing capital contributions, distributions, and the agreed-upon share of profits and losses.
Facts:
- In 2005, Kyle and Dionne Johnson formed an oral partnership with Willie Price (through his corporation, Graze Out Cattle Co.) to purchase and operate a catering business, The Gathering Place.
- The parties agreed to a 50/50 split of profits and losses, with the Johnsons managing daily operations and Price securing financing.
- To fund the purchase, Graze Out borrowed $70,000 from Herring National Bank; the loan documents named Graze Out as the borrower, and both Price and Kyle Johnson personally guaranteed the note, but the partnership was not mentioned.
- The partnership used $58,200 of the loan proceeds to buy the business, with the remainder used for initial operating expenses.
- Kyle Johnson also contributed $12,000 worth of kitchen equipment and $10,000 from a personal loan to the partnership's operating expenses.
- During operations, the business used $27,074.84 of its revenue to make payments on Graze Out's bank note, and the Johnsons withdrew $30,000 for personal living expenses.
- In February 2007, facing a rent increase and financial losses, the partners agreed to dissolve the partnership and close the business.
Procedural Posture:
- In January 2008, Graze Out Cattle Co. filed suit against Kyle and Dionne Johnson in the 320th District Court of Potter County, Texas, seeking dissolution of the partnership and an accounting.
- The Johnsons filed a counterclaim, requesting a declaratory judgment to resolve the amount of the parties' capital contributions and accounts.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court issued a judgment dissolving the partnership and ordering the Johnsons to pay $28,479.00 to Graze Out.
- The Johnsons, as Appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, with Graze Out 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:
Is a corporate loan obtained by one partner to fund a partnership considered a partnership liability upon dissolution when the loan documents do not name the partnership?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Pirtle
No, a corporate loan obtained by one partner is not a partnership liability if the loan documents do not obligate the partnership. There is no evidence that the Herring note was a partnership obligation, as it was signed by Price on behalf of Graze Out, made no mention of the partnership, and held Graze Out corporately liable. The loan proceeds should be treated as Graze Out's capital contribution, not a debt of the partnership. Therefore, the partners' final accounts must be settled by calculating their respective capital contributions, subtracting distributions, and allocating the partnership's capital losses according to their 50/50 agreement, rather than holding the Johnsons responsible for the remaining balance on the Herring note.
Analysis:
This decision emphasizes the critical importance of formal documentation in partnership and financing agreements. By refusing to treat a partner's corporate loan as a partnership liability, the court reinforced the principle that obligations are defined by the explicit terms of legal documents, not the ultimate use of the funds. This case serves as a cautionary tale for partners, illustrating that without an express agreement assuming a debt, courts will default to statutory formulas for winding up, which can lead to outcomes different from what the parties might have informally understood. It solidifies the distinction between a partner's action to fund their capital contribution and an action taken on behalf of the partnership itself.
