Considerations for Establishing or Denying a Texas Partnership to Invest in Real Estate
Rachel Roosth and Emma Oliver of Norton Rose Fulbright examine considerations for proving or disputing the existence of a general partnership and how an alleged partnership’s investments in real estate may affect that analysis.
January 29, 2025 at 03:46 PM
8 minute read
Where parties dispute the existence of a Texas general partnership to invest in real estate, a variety of Texas laws come into play. As with any Texas general partnership, the Texas Business Organizations Code and Texas case law interpreting its provisions are relevant. But in the real estate context, the statute of frauds is also important. In this article, we examine considerations for proving or disputing the existence of a general partnership and how an alleged partnership’s investments in real estate may affect that analysis.
In Texas, a general partnership is “an entity distinct from its partners.” Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 152.056. Partnership property belongs to the partnership, not the partners. Similarly, property acquired in the partner’s name, without the use of the partnership’s name or property, is presumptively the partner’s property. These distinctions are important to bear in mind when analyzing how to structure the relationship of parties entering into real estate transactions.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHUD Charges Texas HOA With Housing Discrimination in Last Days of Biden Administration
5 minute readO'Melveny, White & Case, Skadden Beef Up in Texas With Energy, Real Estate Lateral Partner Hires
5 minute readAI Tools, Antitrust Risks: The Hidden Dangers of Software Pricing Tools
7 minute readBaker & Hostetler to Open Austin Office With 10-Lawyer Locke Lord Affordable Housing Team
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Trial Court's Sidestep of 'Batson' Deprived Defendant of Challenge to Jury Discrimination
- 2Is Your Law Firm Growing Fast Enough? Scale, Consolidation and Competition
- 3Child Custody: The Dangers of 'Rules of Thumb'
- 4The Spectacle of Rudy Giuliani Returns to the SDNY
- 5Orrick Hires Longtime Weil Partner as New Head of Antitrust Litigation
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250