1. The case involved the dissolution of a law partnership between Attorney Joaquin Misa and other partners including Attorneys Jesus Bito and Mariano Lozada.
2. Misa withdrew from the partnership citing it had ceased to be mutually satisfactory. The Securities and Exchange Commission ruled the partnership was a partnership at will and could be dissolved by any partner's withdrawal.
3. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the partnership was at will as there was no specific duration, and could be dissolved by any partner's withdrawal, regardless of good or bad faith since partners cannot be forced to remain against their will.
1. The case involved the dissolution of a law partnership between Attorney Joaquin Misa and other partners including Attorneys Jesus Bito and Mariano Lozada.
2. Misa withdrew from the partnership citing it had ceased to be mutually satisfactory. The Securities and Exchange Commission ruled the partnership was a partnership at will and could be dissolved by any partner's withdrawal.
3. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the partnership was at will as there was no specific duration, and could be dissolved by any partner's withdrawal, regardless of good or bad faith since partners cannot be forced to remain against their will.
1. The case involved the dissolution of a law partnership between Attorney Joaquin Misa and other partners including Attorneys Jesus Bito and Mariano Lozada.
2. Misa withdrew from the partnership citing it had ceased to be mutually satisfactory. The Securities and Exchange Commission ruled the partnership was a partnership at will and could be dissolved by any partner's withdrawal.
3. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the partnership was at will as there was no specific duration, and could be dissolved by any partner's withdrawal, regardless of good or bad faith since partners cannot be forced to remain against their will.
1. The case involved the dissolution of a law partnership between Attorney Joaquin Misa and other partners including Attorneys Jesus Bito and Mariano Lozada.
2. Misa withdrew from the partnership citing it had ceased to be mutually satisfactory. The Securities and Exchange Commission ruled the partnership was a partnership at will and could be dissolved by any partner's withdrawal.
3. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the partnership was at will as there was no specific duration, and could be dissolved by any partner's withdrawal, regardless of good or bad faith since partners cannot be forced to remain against their will.
lalnLlffs: C8LCC8lC l. C81LCA, 1CMAS C. uLL CAS1lLLC, !8., and 8Ln!AMln 1. 8ACC88C
uefendanL: CCu81 Cl ALALS, SLCu8l1lLS Anu LxCPAnCL CCMMlSSlCn and !CACuln L. MlSA
onenLe: vlLug, !"
CASL: ALLy. Mlsa assoclaLed hlmself wlLh hereln plalnLlffs. Mlsa reslgned from Lhe parLnershlp on Lhe ground LhaL parLnershlp has ceased Lo be muLually saLlsfacLory", and as such asked for llquldaLlon of hls shares, especlally ln connecLlon wlLh Lhe Lwo floors of Lhe bulldlng.
1he SLC hearlng offlcer ruled LhaL ALLy. Mlsa's reslgnaLlon dld noL dlssolve Lhe parLnershlp, buL Lhls was reversed by SLC en banc on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe parLnershlp was a parLnershlp aL wlll.
1he Supreme CourL ruled LhaL Lhe law flrm was a parLnershlp aL wlll because Lhere was no speclflc duraLlon for lL. 1haL lL was consLlLuLed for a purpose does noL change lLs characLer because under Lhe law., parLnershlps consLlLuLed for a purpose" are Lhose for a parLlcular pro[ecL, and Lherefore sLlll for a perlod. 1he law flrm, belng a parLnershlp aL wlll can Lherefore be dlssolved by reLlremenL of any one of Lhe parLners. Such parLner ls noL llable for anyLhlng, unless hls reLlremenL was of bad falLh. ln Lhls case, ALLy. Mlsa dld noL have bad falLh and ls Lherefore noL llable for damages.
uCC18lnL: lor as long as Lhe reason for wlLhdrawal of a parLner ls noL conLrary Lo Lhe dlcLaLes of [usLlce and falrness, nor for Lhe purpose of unduly vlslLlng harm and damage upon Lhe parLnershlp, bad falLh cannoL be sald Lo characLerlze Lhe acL. 8ad falLh, ln Lhe conLexL here used, ls no dlfferenL from lLs normal concepL of a consclous and lnLenLlonal deslgn Lo do a wrongful acL for a dlshonesL purpose or moral obllqulLy.
:79;!#4<%=> ! !anuary 4, 1937 ! 8CSS, LAW8LnCL, SLLP and CA88ASCCSC was duly reglsLered ln Lhe MercanLlle 8eglsLry ! AugusL 4, 1948 ! Lhe above-menLloned law flrm was reconsLlLuLed wlLh Lhe SecurlLles and Lxchange Commlsslon on 1he SLC records show LhaL Lhere were several subsequenL amendmenLs Lo Lhe arLlcles of parLnershlp. ! uecember 9, 1980 ! !oaquln L. Mlsa, !esus 8. 8lLo and Marlano M. Lozada assoclaLed Lhemselves LogeLher, as senlor parLners wlLh respondenLs Cregorlo l. CrLega, 1omas C. del CasLlllo, !r., and 8en[amln 8acorro, as [unlor parLners. ! lebruary 17, 1988 ! Mlsa wroLe respondenLs a leLLer whereby he wlLhdraws from Lhe flrm of 8lLo, Mlsa and Lozada. AnoLher leLLer ln Lhe same day sLaLed LhaL he would llke Lo meeL wlLh Lhe parLners concernlng Lhe mechanlcs of llquldaLlon and hls lnLeresL ln Lhe Lwo floors of Lhe bulldlng Lhey were occupylng. ! lebruary 19, 1988 ! Mlsa wroLe anoLher leLLer sLaLlng LhaL hls reslgnaLlon ls based on Lhe facL LhaL Lhe parLnershlp has ceased Lo be muLually saLlsfacLory" ! !une 30, 1988 ! Mlsa flled wlLh SLC's Commlsslon's SecurlLles lnvesLlgaLlon and Clearlng ueparLmenL (SlCu) a peLlLlon for dlssoluLlon and llquldaLlon of parLnershlp. ! March 31, 1989 ! Lhe hearlng offlcer held LhaL Mlsa's wlLhdrawal dld noL dlssolve Lhe parLnershlp. 1he llquldaLlon wlll be governed by Lhelr AgreemenL. ! SLC en banc ! reversed Lhe declslon of Lhe Pearlng Cfflcer and held LhaL Lhe wlLhdrawal of ALLorney !oaquln L. Mlsa had dlssolved Lhe parLnershlp of "8lLo, Mlsa & Lozada." 1he Commlsslon ruled LhaL, belng a parLnershlp aL wlll, Lhe law flrm could be dlssolved by any parLner aL anyLlme, such as by hls wlLhdrawal Lherefrom, regardless of good falLh or bad falLh, !"#$%&' )!*+$#*,-.) !$/ +*0,+, /."#,+, 12345 6 23478 !++&9 :;!<0.$ ;=.#+!
*!%-#>># !$$# "0+.#**#? slnce no parLner can be forced Lo conLlnue ln Lhe parLnershlp agalnsL hls wlll. ! CourL of Appeals ! afflrmed ln LoLo o ALLorney !esus 8lLo and ALLorney Marlano Lozada boLh dled, respecLlvely, SepLember 3,1991 and uecember 21,1991 durlng Lhe pendency of Lhe case wlLh CA.
?@@<6@ 54 :6 #6@4AB6=> 1. WheLher or noL Lhe CourL of Appeals has erred ln holdlng LhaL Lhe parLnershlp of 8lLo, Mlsa & Lozada (now 8lLo, Lozada, CrLega & CasLlllo) ls a parLnershlp aL wlll 2. WheLher or noL Lhe CourL of Appeals has erred ln holdlng LhaL Lhe wlLhdrawal of prlvaLe respondenL dlssolved Lhe parLnershlp regardless of hls good or bad falLh 3. WheLher or noL Lhe CourL of Appeals has erred ln holdlng LhaL prlvaLe respondenL's demand for Lhe dlssoluLlon of Lhe parLnershlp so LhaL he can geL a physlcal parLlLlon of parLnershlp was noL made ln bad falLh
#6@4A<5?4%@ 7%= 7#!<C6%5@ ?@@<6 ' ! WheLher or noL Lhe CourL of Appeals has erred ln holdlng LhaL Lhe parLnershlp of 8lLo, Mlsa & Lozada (now 8lLo, Lozada, CrLega & CasLlllo) ls a parLnershlp aL wlll ! nC. A parLnershlp LhaL does noL flx lLs Lerm ls a parLnershlp aL wlll. 1he law flrm "8lLo, Mlsa & Lozada," and now "8lLo, Lozada, CrLega and CasLlllo," ls lndeed such a parLnershlp.
Ma[or olnL 1: 1haL Lhe parLnershlp was a parLnershlp aL wlll ls proven by Lhelr parLnershlp agreemenL. Amended arLlcles of 19 AugusL 1948 does noL provlde for a speclfled perlod or underLaklng. 1he "uu8A1lCn" clause slmply sLaLes: "3. uu8A1lCn. 1he parLnershlp shall conLlnue so long as muLually saLlsfacLory and upon Lhe deaLh or legal lncapaclLy of one of Lhe parLners, shall be conLlnued by Lhe survlvlng parLners."
Ma[or olnL 2: 1he law flrm ls noL a parLnershlp wlLh a speclflc underLaklng" even Lhough lL was consLlLuLed for a parLlcular purpose. ApparenLly whaL Lhe law conLemplaLes, ls a speclflc underLaklng or "pro[ecL" whlch has a deflnlLe or deflnable perlod of compleLlon. 1hls ls noL Lhe case here.
?@@<6 * ! WheLher or noL Lhe CourL of Appeals has erred ln holdlng LhaL Lhe wlLhdrawal of prlvaLe respondenL dlssolved Lhe parLnershlp regardless of hls good or bad falLh ! nC.
Ma[or olnL 1: 1he blrLh and llfe of a parLnershlp aL wlll ls predlcaLed on Lhe muLual deslre and consenL of Lhe parLners. 1he rlghL Lo choose wlLh whom a person wlshes Lo assoclaLe hlmself ls Lhe very foundaLlon and essence of LhaL parLnershlp. Any one of Lhe parLners may, aL hls sole pleasure, dlcLaLe a dlssoluLlon of Lhe parLnershlp aL wlll. Pe musL, however, acL ln good falLh, noL LhaL Lhe aLLendance of bad falLh can prevenL Lhe dlssoluLlon of Lhe parLnershlp buL LhaL lL can resulL ln a llablllLy for damages.
Ma[or olnL 2: 1he llquldaLlon of Lhe asseLs of Lhe parLnershlp followlng lLs dlssoluLlon ls governed by varlous provlslons of Lhe Clvll Code. Powever, an agreemenL of Lhe parLners, llke any oLher conLracL, ls blndlng among Lhem and normally Lakes precedence Lo Lhe exLenL appllcable over Lhe Code's general provlslons. ln Lhls case, Lhe parLles had an agreemenL concernlng llquldaLlon upon dlssoluLlon of Lhe parLnershlp ! DEFEGFEDH ,2 7IJKLJL 7FMNO/JP &Q REFMKJFPHND" '
*!%-#>># !$$# "0+.#**#? 1he Lerm "reLlremenL" musL have been used ln Lhe arLlcles of parLnershlp, ls used ln a generlc sense Lo mean Lhe dlssoclaLlon by a parLner, lncluslve of reslgnaLlon or wlLhdrawal, from Lhe parLnershlp LhaL Lhereby dlssolves lL.
?@@<6 1 ! WheLher or noL Lhe CourL of Appeals has erred ln holdlng LhaL prlvaLe respondenL's demand for Lhe dlssoluLlon of Lhe parLnershlp so LhaL he can geL a physlcal parLlLlon of parLnershlp was noL made ln bad falLh ! nC. ALLy. Mlsa dld noL acL ln bad falLh.
Ma[or olnL 1: ubllc respondenLs vlewed hls wlLhdrawal Lo have been spurred by "lnLerpersonal confllcL" among Lhe parLners. lL would noL be rlghL, we agree, Lo leL any of Lhe parLners remaln ln Lhe parLnershlp under such an aLmosphere of anlmoslLy.
%4 @6R7#756 4R?%?4%@
7==?5?4%7A %456@>
"##$% &'()*( +,-- -.##./0
FOEEIN EF ABC !OMHM =RJOGJ@V' 473 !OFHIE ,AICCA' ,HOSCGE ZJOOHVC' [H\HAJ' [CAIE [H@JOH' ABCJI AIRC DHORC HA ABC AJKC EF NRSB GCHAB EI ICAJICKC@A NBHOO PC GCACIKJ@CG PL ATE 128 J@GCMC@GC@A HMMIHJNCIN' E@C AE PC HMMEJ@ACG 1PL ABC MHIA@CINBJM H@G ABC EABCI PL ABC8 ICAJIJ@V MHIA@CI EI ABC BCJIN EF H GCSCHNCG MHIA@CI' HN ABC SHNC KHL PC9 .@ ABC CDC@A EF H@L GJNHVICCKC@A PCATCC@ ABC NHJG HMMIHJNCIN H ABJIG HMMIHJNCI TJOO PC HMMEJ@ACG PL ABCK TBENC GCSJNJE@ NBHOO PC FJ@HO9 +BC NBHIC EF ABC ICAJIJ@V EI GCSCHNCG MHIA@CI J@ ABC HFEICKC@AJE@CG ATE 128 FOEEI EFFJSC SE@GEKJ@JRK NBHOO PC GCACIKJ@CG RME@ ABC PHNJN EF ABC DHORHAJE@ HPEDC KC@AJE@CG TBJSB NBHOO PC MHJG KE@ABOL TJABJ@ ABC FJINA AC@ 1438 GHLN EF CDCIL KE@AB J@ J@NAHOOKC@AN EF @EA OCNN ABH@ )23'333933 FEI ABC ,C@JEI )HIA@CIN' )43'333933 J@ ABC SHNC EF ATE 128 CUJNAJ@V :R@JEI )HIA@CIN H@G )X'333933 J@ ABC SHNC EF ABC @CT :R@JEI )HIA@CI9 $%&' ()*+,'*-&.( &)- /')-'0 +1 2' 34+4)556 -)+.-7)/+1*6 2'/)4-' 17 +&' 81*9.,: /1,0.+.1,- 17 14* '3(516''- .,/540.,: +&' )--.-+),+ )++1*,'6-" ;55 36 '771*+- +1 )3'5.1*)+' +&' 2'518 -42-.-+',/' 5'<'5 17 +&' ()6 -/)5' 17 14* '3(516''- &)<' 2'', +&8)*+'0 26 +&' 1+&'* ()*+,'*-" =1+ 1,56 &)<' +&'6 *'74-'0 +1 :.<' 3'),.,:745 .,/*')-'- +1 +&' '3(516''-> '<', )++1*,'6-> )*' 0*'--'0 018, (425./56 ., ) 5140 <1./' ., ) 3),,'* +&)+ 0'(*.<'0 +&'3 17 +&'.* -'57?*'-('/+" %&' *'-45+ 17 -4/& (15./.'- .- +&' 71*3)+.1, 17 +&' 4,.1,> .,/540.,: +&' )--.-+),+ )++1*,'6-"$
United States v. Robert Shapiro, AKA "Robert Krimins," AKA "Ted Ely," AKA Robert Weldon, AKA Bob Cremins, AKA Robert Gurian, AKA William Thomas Stovers, AKA Robert Bullis, AKA James Nally, 107 F.3d 5, 2d Cir. (1997)