Skip to main content

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

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,787 chars
production. As Dr. Louise testified, the arrangement was designed so that all three would

receive 40 percent of their production: "[B]asically all of us get-end up getting 40

percent of the amount we--of production on our patients and we split the overhead,

which is 60 percent." AR at 156. The lawyer for the dental practice undertook to

illustrate this from the 2010 operating results during the hearing and reproduced the

analysis in his brief. See AR at 119-20; Br. of Appellant at 7-8.

15
              

I
I
j
DeFelice v. Emp 'f Sec. Dep 'f
No. 32382-0-111- dissent
I,
! The commissioner's pivotal conclusion of law identifying the basis for rejecting
I DeFelice Dentistry's claim to be a partnership is conclusion 7, which offers three reasons
i
,I

i that 1 address here, and in the two sections that follow.
I
!
I
J The first was that the dentists did not share profits. The ALJ implicitly accepted
~
~
!I the department's position that it is not enough for partners to arrive at a system for profit
1

I sharing that they conclude is fair-and in this case, that the partners concluded was close

I enough to giving each partner an equal profit percentage on his or her production. 5

j The dentists' agreement that the daughters would receive paychecks equal to 40

I percent of the professional fees collected from their services, while Dr. Armand would
II take "whatever was left" is not inconsistent with the existence of a partnership. RCW

I 25.05.015(1) provides that with respect to most matters, "relations among the partners

and between the partners and the partnership are governed by the partnership agreement."

Many provisions of the RUPA govern the partners' relations when the partners fail to