Putnam v. Shoaf

Brief Fact Summary. Appellant administrator, George Putnam, brought an action against Appellees, John and Maurine Shoaf, to collect money paid to Appellee’s partnership. Appellees bought their interest of the partnership from Carolyn Putnam, whose estate is now represented by Appellant.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. A conveyance of partnership property by one partner held in the name of the partnership is made in the name of the partnership and not as a conveyance of the individual interests of the partners.

Facts. Putnam and her husband owned one half of a business, Frog Jump Gin, with another couple. After Putnam’s husband died the business became unprofitable, and Appellees offered to take Putnam’s share of the business. Putnam and the other partners would put $21,000 into the partnership and then Putnam would convey her share of the business. After Putnam conveyed her interest, Appellee’s discovered that the former bookkeeper was stealing money from the business. The business collected $68,000, but Appellant asserts that Appellee’s share is rightfully the estate of Putnam’s because the misconduct happened while she was a partner.

Issue. The issue is whether Putnam’s conveyance of her rights in the business to Appellees included the rights to the money collected by Appellees.

Held. The Appellant is not entitled to the money collected by the business. Although the dishonest bookkeeping occurred while Putnam was still a partner, Putnam signed over her undivided interest in the partnership to Appellees. A partner does not personally own any specific property of the partnership and therefore can not retain any rights to the partnership after she conveyed it to Appellees. If she had an interest in the money, then she had an interest in the partnership.