Warner v. Modano
340 Mass. 439, 164 N.E.2d 904, 1960 Mass. LEXIS 705 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A secret and inactive partner, even one who made some limited public representations, may not be liable to post-dissolution creditors who had no knowledge of his partnership, if the partner's activity was so unknown and inactive that the partnership's business reputation could not reasonably be said to have been due to his connection with it, as per G. L. c. 108A, § 35 (2) (b).
Facts:
- In late May 1953, Dr. Beale learned that Modano was having difficulties with his co-partner, Acconcia, at the Napoli Super Market.
- Beale lent Modano $3,500, with $3,200 of this amount being paid to a creditor of the Napoli Super Market, and Modano gave Beale a note for $4,000.
- Modano also gave Beale an option to become a partner in the market by discharging the indebtedness.
- On or about June 20, 1953, Modano purchased Acconcia’s interest in the market for $3,500 and filed a business certificate stating he, Modano, was conducting the Napoli Super Market.
- On or about June 20, 1953, Beale and Modano secretly entered into a partnership for the operation of the Napoli Super Market.
- During their partnership, Beale engaged employees, regularly examined the market's books, and on one occasion warned a salesman that he would not be responsible for orders placed by the manager.
- On April 12, 1954, Beale wrote a letter to the market's manager purporting to discharge him 'from my employment' and signed it 'Frederick F. Beale, Co-Partner.'
- On September 28, 1954, Modano and Beale entered a written agreement dissolving their 'partners to each other but not partners as to third persons' relationship, but no public notice of this dissolution was given.
- All six claims in suit arose after Beale became a partner, and four of these six claims came into existence after the September 28, 1954, dissolution agreement.
- None of the creditors who extended credit to the Napoli Super Market were aware of Beale's relationship to the market, and there was no evidence that Beale's representations were ever communicated to them.
Procedural Posture:
- On September 1, 1955, an assignee of six trade accounts filed a bill in equity in a trial court against defendants Beale and Modano, seeking to reach and apply a note and mortgage secured by market assets from Modano to Beale.
- The bill was taken as confessed against Modano.
- A final decree was entered by the trial court establishing all the plaintiff's claims, ordering Beale and Modano to pay them, and restraining Beale from foreclosing the mortgage until the claims were paid.
- The trial judge found that Beale and Modano entered into a secret partnership, that Beale made public representations as a partner, that creditors were unaware of his relationship, and that dissolution notice was not published.
- The trial judge ruled that Beale was liable on all six accounts as though he were an active member of the partnership under G. L. c. 108A, § 16 (1) (a).
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 secret and inactive partner remain liable to creditors who extended credit to the partnership after its dissolution, if those creditors were unaware of the partner's existence or the dissolution, and the partner's activity was not a material cause of the partnership's business reputation?
Opinions:
Majority - Whittemore, J.
No, a secret and inactive partner is not liable to post-dissolution creditors if the creditors were unaware of his participation, and his activities were not a material cause of the partnership's business reputation. The court held that Beale, though a secret and inactive partner, was liable as an undisclosed principal for debts incurred while he remained a partner (G. L. c. 108A, §§ 9, 15). However, for the four debts incurred after the dissolution agreement, G. L. c. 108A, § 16 (partner by estoppel), was inapplicable because there was no finding that Beale himself made representations to these specific creditors, or that his representations were ever communicated to them. The judge below had found that none of the assignors were aware of Beale's relationship to the market. The assignee relied on G. L. c. 108A, § 35, which addresses a partner's liability after dissolution. While § 35 (1) (b) generally holds the partnership liable to prior creditors without knowledge of dissolution, § 35 (2) (b) limits a former partner's liability to partnership assets alone if they were "(a) Unknown as a partner to . . . [the creditor]; and (b) So far unknown and inactive in partnership affairs that the business reputation of the partnership could not be said to have been in any degree due to his connection with it." The court interpreted § 35 (2) (b) to imply a "qualification of reasonableness," requiring a determination of whether a reasonable causal relationship existed between the retired partner's participation and the partnership's business reputation. Based on the evidence, the court found Beale was "so far unknown and inactive in partnership affairs that the business reputation of . . . [Napoli Super Market] could not . . . [reasonably be found] to have been in any degree due to his connection with it." There was no evidence that anyone in the business community extending credit knew of the partnership or heard of Beale's specific remarks, nor did Beale engage in direct market operations. Therefore, Beale was not liable for the four post-dissolution debts, but remained liable for the two debts incurred prior to the dissolution agreement.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of Uniform Partnership Act (UPA) § 35 (Massachusetts G.L. c. 108A, § 35) regarding the post-dissolution liability of secret or dormant partners. It establishes a strict interpretation of the 'unknown and inactive' clause, requiring creditors seeking to hold a former secret partner personally liable for post-dissolution debts to demonstrate a reasonable causal link between the partner's prior participation and the partnership's business reputation. This ruling provides a protective shield for truly inactive and undisclosed partners who had no material public impact on the business's credit, limiting their liability to partnership assets alone. Future cases involving such partners will need to meticulously examine the extent of the partner's public visibility and contribution to the partnership's perceived standing in the business community.
