Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/323820.opn.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,724 chars

between him and Drs. Loretta and Louise. In determining whether an employer is

responsible for.contributions to the unemployment fund, the first question is whether an

individual is in '"employment.''' Penick v. Emp't Sec. Dep't, 82 Wn. App. 30, 38, 917

P.2d 136 (1996). "Employment" is defined as "personal service, of whatever nature,

unlimited by the relationship of master and servant as known to the common law or any

other legal relationship, ... performed for wages or under any contract calling for

performance of personal services, written or oral, express or implied." RCW 50.04.100.

If Drs. Loretta and Louise were partners, they would not be in "employment" as defined

by the Employment Security Act.

"[T]he association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business

for profit forms a partnership." RCW 25.05.055(1). Required is joint ownership of the

business and a joint right of control over the business' affairs. Bengston v. Shain, 42

Wn.2d 404, 409, 255 P.2d 892 (1953). "A person who receives a share of the profits of

a business is presumed to be a partner in the business, unless the profits were received

6
             

No. 32382-0-111
DeFelice v. Emp't Sec. Dep't

in payment" as wages to an employee. RCW 25.05.055(3)(c)(ii); see also Bengston, 42

Wn.2d at 409 ("The mere sharing of the net proceeds of a business venture with an

employee, without more, does not of itself convert the relationship between the parties

concerned into a partnership.").

The burden of proving a partnership is on the party asserting its existence.

Bengston, 42 Wn.2d at 409. Just because the parties call their arrangement a