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

1,657 chars

It is not necessary that partners always share losses equally and it
was legal error to conclude otherwise-particularly based on
hypothetical losses that are unlikely ever to occur.

The commissioner's second reason for concluding that DeFelice Dentistry was not

a partnership was its acceptance of the department's position that the partners do not

share losses, since "if [the daughters] did not work, they did not contribute to overhead"

leaving the burden to fall disproportionately on Dr. Armand. AR at 296 (finding 7}.8

This was based on Dr. Louise's response to a hypothetical question from the

department's lawyer who inquired whether, "[i]f [she] decide[d] to take the month off,"

she would contribute anything to overhead. 9 Dr. Louise acknowledged that in that event,

based on the dentists' compensation agreement, she would not contribute to overhead.

She immediately added, "But 1 can also tell you I have never taken a month off." AR at

159-60.

8 Conclusion 7 further states:

Dr. Louise and Dr. Loretta did not share in ... losses.... If they did not
work, they did not contribute to overhead. After payments to Dr. Louise
and Dr. Loretta, Dr. Armand earned only whatever was left each month.

ARat296.
9 Somewhat inconsistent with its ultimate position, the department's hypothetical
suggestion that Dr. Louise might decide to take a month off attributes to her the
prerogatives of an owner, not an employee. The association agreement that she signed in
2004 contemplated that she would work three days, more or less, per week. AR at 247.
22
I
!i
!

!
Ij