Background

• Unmarried couple Joyce Via and Larry Oehlert Sr. lived at 2565 Simmons Road, a property Oehlert purchased in 2002 under a lease-purchase.
• Via contributed to improvements and labor on the property, including constructing a woodworking shop, roofing, patio work, planting, and interior remodeling, spending at least $20,000 plus labor.
• Oehlert paid the mortgage during the relationship; Via paid utilities; the property was titled solely in Oehlert’s name, and the parties maintained separate bank accounts and vehicles.
• The relationship ended in 2009; Via remained in sole possession of the residence without paying rent.
• Via filed May 12, 2009, seeking dissolution of an alleged partnership, an accounting of assets, and distribution; Oehlert counterclaimed for possession, damages, and fees related to Via’s refusal to vacate.
• At trial, Via conceded lack of a written partnership and the property title in Oehlert’s name; the trial court granted a Rule 41.02 involuntary dismissal, holding no express or implied partnership existed.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Bass v. Bass, 814 S.W.2d 38 (Tenn. 1991) (implied partnerships possible from joint contributions for profit)
• Lanier v. Story, 166 S.W.3d 167 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2004) (partnership definitions; cohabitation not per se partnership)
• Roberts v. Lebanon Appliance Service Co., 779 S.W.2d 793 (Tenn.1989) (intent and acts determine partnership existence)
• Pritchett v. Thomas Plater & Co., 232 S.W.2d 961 (Tenn.1921) (profits sharing or joint venture may create partnership by conduct)
• Wyatt v. Brown, 281 S.W.2d 64 (Tenn.1955) (what constitutes partnership is determined by parties' intent and conduct)
• Messer Griesheim Indus. v. Cryotech of Kingsport, Inc., 45 S.W.3d 588 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2001) (joint venture and partnership rules apply similarly)
• Robertson v. Lyons, 553 S.W.2d 754 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1977) (joint ventures are governed by same rules as partnerships)