Vohland v. Sweet
1982 Ind. App. LEXIS 1145, 433 N.E.2d 860 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A partnership may be formed by the conduct of the parties, even without a formal written or oral agreement. An arrangement where one party contributes labor and skill in exchange for a share of the net profits, which are then reinvested into business assets, is sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a partnership.
Facts:
- In 1963, Paul Eugene Vohland started a nursery business after his father, Charles Vohland, retired.
- Vohland entered an arrangement with Norman E. Sweet, who had worked for Vohland's father, to pay Sweet 20 percent of the nursery's net profits after all expenses were paid.
- Vohland handled the finances and sales, while Sweet managed the physical nursery operations and supervised labor.
- On their tax returns, Vohland listed payments to Sweet as "Commissions" on a Schedule C, while Sweet filed as a self-employed salesman.
- From the late 1960s, a significant portion of the business's earnings, which would have otherwise been distributed, were used to purchase and grow new nursery stock inventory.
- Sweet did not make any initial capital contribution, and the parties never explicitly discussed forming a partnership or sharing losses.
- Vohland told Sweet that he would have "an interest in the business" and "a piece of the action."
- At the end of the arrangement in 1979, the business had accumulated a substantial inventory of nursery stock paid for out of the business's earnings.
Procedural Posture:
- Norman E. Sweet sued Paul Eugene Vohland in the Ripley Circuit Court (a state trial court) for dissolution of a partnership and an accounting.
- The trial court found that a partnership existed and entered a judgment in favor of Sweet for $58,733.
- Vohland, as the defendant-appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Indiana.
- Sweet is the plaintiff-appellee in the appeal.
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 arrangement where one individual contributes labor and skill, manages the enterprise, and receives a 20 percent share of the net profits, which are then used to acquire inventory for the business, constitute a partnership despite the absence of a formal agreement or capital contribution?
Opinions:
Majority - Neal, J.
Yes, this arrangement constitutes a partnership. Under the Uniform Partnership Act, the receipt of a share of the profits is prima facie evidence of a partnership. The parties' intent to form a partnership is determined by their actions, not by what they call their relationship. Here, the contribution of labor and skill by Sweet is a valid form of contribution to a partnership. More importantly, profits in which Sweet had a 20 percent interest were reinvested into the business to build up inventory. This demonstrates a community of interest in the assets and profits of a common venture, which is the substance of a partnership, regardless of the absence of a formal agreement or the labels the parties used on their tax forms.
Analysis:
This case is significant for affirming that a partnership can be created by implication through the conduct of the parties, particularly the sharing of profits. It establishes that the objective actions and the substance of an arrangement override the parties' subjective intent or their chosen labels. The court's focus on the reinvestment of Sweet's share of profits into inventory as evidence of co-ownership provides a key analytical tool for identifying partnerships in informal business structures. This precedent serves as a cautionary tale for business owners, illustrating that employment-like relationships based on profit-sharing can inadvertently create the legal rights and obligations of a partnership.
