LOUIS BENITO ADVERTISING, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD L. BROWN AND WALTER L. COPELAND, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS AS BROWN & COPELAND, AND INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS AS COOPERS & LYBRAND, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A professional malpractice plaintiff sued an accounting partnership and over 200 alleged partners but sought to recover only from partnership assets, not individual partner assets. The court held that service on one partner is sufficient to bind the partnership and its assets, making it unnecessary to name or serve all partners when pursuing a judgment against partnership property.
It is not necessary to name or serve all partners when suing a partnership for a judgment against partnership assets. Service of process on one partner gives the court jurisdiction over the partnership and authorizes a judgment binding on the partnership property.
[1] Service of process on one partner is sufficient to grant a court jurisdiction over a partnership and authorize a judgment enforceable against partnership assets.
[2] A judgment against a partnership is not enforceable as a personal judgment against a partner who has not been personally served.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Service of process on one partner gives a court jurisdiction over the partnership and authorizes it to render a judgment binding on the partner served and the partnership property.”
Establishes the core holding that service on a single partner is sufficient to obtain jurisdiction over partnership assets
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLouis Benito Advertising, Inc. filed a professional malpractice action against Coopers & Lybrand and over 200 individuals alleged to be partners. Only…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
SCHEB, Judge.
Is it necessary for a plaintiff to name all partners as defendants in a suit against a partnership when only seeking a judgment enforceable against the assets of the partnership?
Plaintiff, Louis Benito Advertising, Inc., filed a professional malpractice action against Coopers & Lybrand, an accounting firm, and Richard L. Brown and over 200 other individuals alleged to be partners. After Brown was served as a partner of the firm, Coopers & Lybrand answered and sought to strike from the pleadings “all individuals listed in the caption on whom service has not been made.” The trial court granted the motion. Eventually, at Benito’s request, the trial court clarified its order to provide that all persons named as partners, except Brown, were dismissed as party defendants. This appeal followed.
At oral argument Benito conceded that its goal is to obtain a judgment binding upon the assets of Coopers & Lybrand and not upon the assets of any individual partner, except Brown. Appellees, in turn, acknowledged that if Benito is successful in obtaining a judgment it will be enforceable against the partnership assets of Coopers & Lybrand.
The crux of this appeal then is simply Benito’s concern that since Florida follows the common law rule that a partnership has no identity apart from its members, it may be proceeding against a nonentity. Irwindale Co., N V. v. Three Islands Olympus, 474 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Malibu Partners, Ltd. v. Schooley, 372 So. 2d 179, cert. denied, 381 So. 2d 769 (Fla.1980). In this opinion we seek to allay that concern.
Service of process on one partner gives a court jurisdiction over the partnership and authorizes it to render a judgment binding on the partner served and the partnership property. Nevertheless, a judgment will not be effective as a personal judgment against a partner not actually served. Kennedy v. Richmond, 512 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York v. Homan, 116 So. 2d 444 (Fla.2d DCA 1959).
Notwithstanding these general principles of law, we have held that a partnership may institute litigation in its firm name to protect its assets. Pinellas County v. Lake Padgett Pines, 333 So. 2d 472 (Fla.2d DCA 1976), cert. dismissed, 352 So. 2d 172 (Fla.1977). As a corollary we think it follows that a plaintiff who sues a partnership and obtains service on a partner as provided in section 48.061(2), Florida Statutes (1985), would not be barred from enforcing a judgment against partnership assets.
Because it is unnecessary for Benito to serve the additional partners and it has no intention to do so, retention of the some 200 named individuals in Benito’s complaint would serve no useful purpose. Therefore, we do not fault the trial court.
Affirmed.
DANAHY, C.J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.) J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baker v. Petway, 740 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…iff may proceed to judgment and execution against the limited partnership and all of the general partners individually.... Under the common law rule, a partnership has no identity apart from its members. See Louis Benito Advertising, Inc. v. Brown, 517 So. 2d 775, 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). When the general partner of a limited partnership is a corporation, service is made on the corporation’s officers or agents, pursuant to section 48.081, Florida Statutes. See Country Clubs, Etc. v. Zaun Equipment, Inc., 350…
-
Brinkley v. Cmty. Acres Assocs., Ltd., 602 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…and not served in Florida, thus service issued to foreign limited partnership pursuant to section 48.071, Florida Statutes (1985), was service upon the partnership but not upon the general partners); see also Louis Benito Advertising, Inc. v. Brown, 517 So. 2d 775, 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (service of process on one partner gives court jurisdiction over domestic limited partnership under section 48.061(2), Florida Statutes (1985), and authorizes it to render judgment binding on the partner served and partnershi…
Authorities Cited
- Kennedy v. Richmond, 512 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Pinellas Cnty. v. Lake Padgett Pines, 333 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York v. Forest F. Homan and Norman B. Fisher, 116 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Irwindale Co., N.V. v. Three Islands Olympus, 474 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Malibu P'rs, Ltd. v. Schooley, 372 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)