Texas: need to dissolve partnership and preclude the use of the miscalculated K1s

[quincy]

and what i find i give to the attorny not the defendndant directly.

As long as you do not fill out or file legal documents for the defendant, or provide legal advice to the defendant, you are not practicing law without a license. You need to avoid the unauthorized practice of law.

Handing over to an attorney what you learn from your independent research is fine - although the attorney should be familiar with the information you gather already and having the attorney review what you gathered can increase the defendant's legal costs.

 

[quincy]

Here is a link to Texas unauthorized practice of law. See Comment 3.

https://www.legalethicstexas.com/Et...SSOCIATIONS/5-05-Unauthorized-Practice-of-Law

 

[texasbizinvestor]

oh yea the presumptions as false as they may be, they have been killing us

 

[texasbizinvestor]

Thanks to everyone here, smart bunch!

 

[texasbizinvestor]

ok I know there are a lot of factors y'all are hearing.. that aside: got one more interesting thing to consider. say the defendant makes the partnership amend the tax returns (as required by law) to the true actual distributions based on good records going back 18 years. Now that same defendant lied to the IRS about the K1's, (didn't know she was lying and thought the K1 was like an elective, no doubt most of the jury will see it that way since there was zero benefit of doing that) ) she is admitting it even though she did it "the benefit of what she did wrong was not to her own but the plaintiff that played her".. How likely is that going to effect a jury in this case.. ? (this is why I would hate to be a lawyer) is it worth to settle if she is having to give up 250,000 on 5 million in total assets (10 mill total splitting up 2 ways) ? and settle or go to trail, amend the tax returns with good proof and show owing zero but then you got he jury see how the jury

 

[LdiJ]

This may sound a bit off in left field, but if the partnership either distributed all of the profits each year, there would be no change in the capital accounts.

Also, no where in this thread have you said exactly what the managing member is being sued for.

 

[texasbizinvestor]

good question actually. everything was split at the point of sale, so no one should be asking the other to pay jack,, (this is admittedly a bias opinion) the 2 partners actually really got along. like you take this renters check and I take that one. nothing got distributed in an organized fashion but they liked it the way it was.. problem came when the offspring(s) of one of the partners took over for theit mother as she was too old to comprehend what is going on anymore. This offspring is confused.. confusion leads to anger and suspicion. so basically the defendant is being sued for not being able to prove herself innocent.. this is the world we live in

 

[Whoops2u]

good question actually. everything was split at the point of sale, so no one should be asking the other to pay jack,, (this is admittedly a bias opinion) the 2 partners actually really got along. like you take this renters check and I take that one. nothing got distributed in an organized fashion but they liked it the way it was.. problem came when the offspring(s) of one of the partners took over for theit mother as she was too old to comprehend what is going on anymore. This offspring is confused.. confusion leads to anger and suspicion. so basically the defendant is being sued for not being able to prove herself innocent.. this is the world we live in

What is the difference between the amount the partner actually got versus the amount they would have got under basis calculations?

 

[texasbizinvestor]

at most 20-30,000

 

[texasbizinvestor]

plus the defendant did all the work while the plaintiff lived fancy free , could actually say I managed this and that was bartered as my share in front of a jury but would need invoice that was going back not just 30 days but 20 years .. not need to respond to that but please see my point

 

[Whoops2u]

at most 20-30,000

I thought we were talking of a major issue over millions of dollars. That many years of errors in capital accounts in an entity of what you're talking about could mean the shifting of millions of dollars from one to another. You've got to consider the cost of litigation in your argument. Even if there is no forensic accounting proof in the size suit you're talking about, you're still going to have to hire an expert to give an opinion on what the amount should be. There seems like there would be all kinds of procedural problems and pleadings before you even get close to court.

As I wrote in my first post, I think you should settle. I admit, I don't know or want to know the problem as to why things happened the way they did or what the other side might argue. Its just that when things are very messed up for a very long time and everyone had written proof of the mess up and didn't do anything for a very long time and it has to do with things that interact with the government in weird ways and cause a lot of hurt and pain to all involved, it just seems that a settlement seems prudent.

 

[LdiJ]

I thought we were talking of a major issue over millions of dollars. That many years of errors in capital accounts in an entity of what you're talking about could mean the shifting of millions of dollars from one to another. You've got to consider the cost of litigation in your argument. Even if there is no forensic accounting proof in the size suit you're talking about, you're still going to have to hire an expert to give an opinion on what the amount should be. There seems like there would be all kinds of procedural problems and pleadings before you even get close to court.

As I wrote in my first post, I think you should settle. I admit, I don't know or want to know the problem as to why things happened the way they did or what the other side might argue. Its just that when things are very messed up for a very long time and everyone had written proof of the mess up and didn't do anything for a very long time and it has to do with things that interact with the government in weird ways and cause a lot of hurt and pain to all involved, it just seems that a settlement seems prudent.

A settlement might be prudent, but do we know the amount that the plaintiff is suing for? However, if a settlement IS done, I do believe that part of the settlement should be that the monies are handled, in the future, in a proper partnership way, and that only profits are distributed to the partners.

 

[texasbizinvestor]

We are trying hard to settle.. mediated one time already and got the weirdest proposals . No one knows how a jury would rule but pretty safe we offered 200,000 better than 90% of the jury would of possibly awarded, good chance the jury would of awarded nothing to either too from seeing the cases of both so far.. This case is like on the 8 yard line. Lot of this is problem is the lack of sophistication by both parties. The Plaintiff hired a witness and the plaintiff appears to not really understand (or doesn't want to understand) what their own paid expert witness is saying. For example: a recent closing where the monies were CLEARLY evenly split, has the plaintiff still thinking the defendant even took several hundred thousand more than they were suppose to. This scenario repeats itself going years back on previous closings where the plaintiff and the plaintiff's experts makes these convenient presumptions driving the damage model sky high. This group of owners will both dissolve, split or partition if no agreement is made soon. In fact a receiver will start to take over in the next few weeks . There is another problem with the groups ability to effectively monetize the properties as a group. Owning together and distributing will wind them right back up in court.

 

[Whoops2u]

We are trying hard to settle.. mediated one time already and got the weirdest proposals . No one knows how a jury would rule but pretty safe we offered 200,000 better than 90% of the jury would of possibly awarded, good chance the jury would of awarded nothing to either too from seeing the cases of both so far.. This case is like on the 8 yard line. Lot of this is problem is the lack of sophistication by both parties. The Plaintiff hired a witness and the plaintiff appears to not really understand (or doesn't want to understand) what their own paid expert witness is saying. For example: a recent closing where the monies were CLEARLY evenly split, has the plaintiff still thinking the defendant even took several hundred thousand more than they were suppose to. This scenario repeats itself going years back on previous closings where the plaintiff and the plaintiff's experts makes these convenient presumptions driving the damage model sky high. This group of owners will both dissolve, split or partition if no agreement is made soon. In fact a receiver will start to take over in the next few weeks . There is another problem with the groups ability to effectively monetize the properties as a group. Owning together and distributing will wind them right back up in court.

The difference is only $20-30,000 and the offer you made is $200,000?

I guess I'm missing something. But, since you're in court already, my knowing what is going on helps about zero. So the best I can say is good luck.