J.T. Turner Construction Company, Inc. “Turner” obtained a default judgment against SWI Partners “SWI”, a general partnership, and Ernest Burns, one of SWI’s partners, for breach of contract and negligent construction. Turner then filed a lawsuit against Orlando Summerour and Randy Hatcher, two other SWI partners, alleging that they were jointly and severally liable for the judgment against SWI. Turner moved for summary judgment, but Summerour and Hatcher responded that they could not be held liable until they have “had their day in court.” The trial court agreed and denied Turner’s motion, finding that Turner was required to “present a prima facie case, and prove the elements of the counts alleged in its complaint against Defendants” in the original suit. We granted Turner’s application for interlocutory appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in denying Turner’s motion for summary judgment. Because we find that Summerour and Hatcher have “had their day in court,” and because there is no dispute that the two, as general partners, are jointly and severally liable for all obligations of SWI, we reverse. As a general rule, all partners in a general partnership are jointly and severally liable for all debts, obligations, and liabilities of the partnership.1 A judgment rendered in a suit against a general partnership binds the partnership assets and the individual assets of any general partners who were properly served in the suit.2 A general partner’s individual assets may not be bound unless the partner himself was personally served with process and has “had his day in court,”3 or unless he has by some express or implied waiver dispensed with the necessity of service.4 However, contrary to Summerour and Hatcher’s argument, partners not personally served in the original suit or who do not appear in the original trial against the partnership are nonetheless subject to be sued individually.5 The question presented in this case is what proof is required in the subsequent suit in order to bind the partner’s individual assets.
It has been a considerable amount of time since this Court has been called upon to address the issue presented in this case. However, Summerour and Hatcher have not cited any case, and we have not located any case, overruling our prior decision addressing this issue. Nor have the parties cited or have we found a more recent decision addressing the precise issues raised here. In Lamar-Rankin Drug Co. , this Court noted three elements that must be proven before a partner served in a subsequent lawsuit can be held individually liable for a prior judgment rendered on a general partnership debt: the plaintiff must prove that 1 the individual sued was a general partner of the partnership, 2 the indebtedness of the partnership was proved; and 3 the account sued upon was the identical account upon which the former suit against the partnership was based.6 Given the fact that Turner has conclusively proven all three elements, the trial court erred in denying summary judgment to Turner.
