80.2K

Verified Solution

Link Copied!

Brief the following case using the IRAC method: Issue:

Rule:

Application:

Conclusion:

thank you

Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. Ward & Olivo, L.L.P 438 N.J. Super. 202 (App. Div. 2014). //. 139 A 3d 30 (N.J. 2016) Ward and Olivo established tegematant Wanita Olim LL.D. SOL a low some creared in the parties of intellectual proerty law lord and was formand W&O dramited Natidy are stihe une and wo bunleif und maluarum daude final by sa po On July 29, 2009 Montage Grade Inc. (MG) e 20 persones for plant infringement. Oured contingency e pement with MC and all those the most awal spinat MG sutried to undertekster she settlements by giving me defendants in the mount On June 302011. Ward and Olle stopped the practicing low ar & Thermal Warmine up its low practice. By collecting outstanding Seal fers, W&D profesional yance policy epimed Apt. 2011. and Wao dat met purchase intrane polo in October 2012. MG Mind alepal ma parte complaini wao, and Worl alleine that is felice harme MG patent ziehts Decouse Olve, among other things failed to rely marrin frie be part of the woment to chur complaint, MG further alleged that wo and and we will be for motorom. By the time MG Medits 18&cade polley had expired, and W& Om Hund had so moment in the nuler vorne line the Benim or Olhos el presentation of NG Ward contends that he Listrielded from liability as a partner in LP and is therefore wet icarly able for the allegriffeval malinactice of his former partier Oliv. He thus argues that complaint against him should be admised Fasciale, Judge In addressing whether Ward is shielded from Olvo's alleged at practice, this Court looks to the statutory language to determine the Legislature's intent. When interpreting statute words are to be give their ordinary meaning and significance. The plan language of NJ.S.A. 42:1 A-1BCC) clearly expresses the Legislative intent that the partners of an LLP are shielded from liability for a fellow partner's acts as it states. An obligation of a partnership incurred while the partnership is an LLP, whether arising in contract, tort or otherwise, is solely the obligation of the partner ship. A partner is not personally liable, directly or indirectly by way of contribution or otherwise, for such an obligation sold by reason of being or so acting as a partner. Without LLP all partners are liable jointly and severally for all obligations of the partnership under the UPA, the status of an LLP remains effective until the LLP telf cancels its status of the LLP's status is revoked by the Department of the Treasury in the event the LLP Gils to file al report when due or pay the required filling fee." Since the status of W&O remains an LLP. the court is dismissing the legal practice claim crted by MG against Ward because he is not vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice of his for ser partner Olivo Judgment of the trial court is meersed: judgment affirming this decision by the Supreme Court of New Jersey Ethics and Compliance in Action You and your friends consider forming a consulting partnership. If you form the business as a parties ship, each partner has personal liability for all the contacts and forts of the partnership. If you form the business as an LLP, in general you and the other partners have no liabidity for partnership obligations beyond the sets of the LLP that is beyond each partner's equity interest in the business *As your form of business, will you choose the partnership or LLP - Isit ethical to be an LLP partner and to have liability limited to your equity interest in the LLP? Would a profit maximizer find it ethical to form an LLP? Would a utilitarian or rights theorist find it ethical Suppose that a bank knows the business is an LLP lends money to the LLP, but does not obtain the LLP partners individual promises to repay the loan. Is it ethical that the LLP partners are not able to the bank on the loan if the LLP sets are insufficient to repay the loan? Operation of Partnerships and Related Forms Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. Ward & Olivo, L.L.P 438 N.J. Super. 202 (App. Div. 2014), aff4, 139 A.34 30 (N.J. 2016) 38-15 Wand and Olio established defendant Ward & Olive, LLP (W&0), law firmeld in the Mactice of lectual perty low Ward and Otvo formed W&O as a limited liability partnership (LDP) par to the UP W&O landed a claims made professional liability insurance policy ang fee agreement with MG and filed a lawsuit (the underlying lawu) pun meldefonso MG de doing a al insurance policy de pole sertlements by giving those defendano here hole have the power to prodie wortement amount On June 30, 2011, Ward and Oliwe stopped acately practicine law as wao. Tercalen Waberen vinden de practice by collecting outstanding legal fees. W&Os professional Walley insurance policy expired on Aurent ke 701, and Wao u mos pranchen In October 2012, MG filed a legal malpractice complaint against wao, oro, and Ward alleelse that Ole's heat andet hammed MG's patent rights because Oliwo, among other things, Falled to require that mowa by rates or comme le le part of the element la the complaint, MG further alleged that W&O and Wand were vicariously liable for Oulu, acts or omiston. By dhe time MG filed complaint , W&O's claims made policy had expired, and W&O was uninsured Ward had no involument in the underlying lewat, the Wand contends that he is shielded from liability as a partner in an LLP and is therefore, not vicariously liable for the alleged legal malpractice of his former partner, Olivo. He thus argues that MG's complaint against him should be dismind settlements, or Olho's legal representation of MG Fasciale, Judge In addressing whether Ward is shielded from Olivo's alleged mal- practice, this Court looks to the statutory language to determine the Legislature's intent. When interpreting a statute, words are to be given their ordinary meaning and significance. The plain language of NJ.S.A. 42:1 A-18(c) clearly expresses the legislative intent that the partners of an LLP are shielded from liability for a fellow partner's acts as it states. "An obligation of a partnership incurred while the partnership is an LLP), whether arising in contract, tort, or otherwise, is solely the obligation of the partner ship. A partner is not personally liable, directly or indirectly, by way of contribution or otherwise, for such an obligation solely by reason of being or so acting as a partner." Without LLP status. all partners are liable jointly and severally for all obligations of the partnership... Under the UPA, the status of an LLP remains effective until the LLP itself cancels its status, or the LLP status is revoked by the Department of the Treasury in the event the LLP "falls to file an annual report when doc or pay the required filling for." Since the status of W&O remains an LLP, the court is driving the legal malpractice claim asserted by MG against Ward because he is not vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice of his for mer partner Olivo Judgment of the trial court is reversed judgment affirming this decision by the Supreme Court of New Jersey Ethics and Compliance in Action You and your friends consider forming a consulting - Is it ethical to be an LLP partner and to have liability limited partnership. If you form the business as a partner to your equity interest in the LLPT Would a profit mulier ship, cach partner has personal liability for all the find it ethical to form an LLPT Would a utilitarian or rights contacts and torts of the partnership. If you form the business as theorist find it ethical? an LLP. in general you and the other partners have no hability Suppose that a bank knows the business is an LLP lenda for partnership obligations beyond the assets of the LLP. that is money to the LLP, but does not obtain the LLP partners beyond each partner's equity interest in the business, individual promises to repay the loan. Is it ethical that the As your form of business, will you choose the partnership LLP partners are not liable to the bank on the loan if the LLP's assets are insufficient to repay the loan? or LLP Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. Ward & Olivo, L.L.P 438 N.J. Super. 202 (App. Div. 2014). //. 139 A 3d 30 (N.J. 2016) Ward and Olivo established tegematant Wanita Olim LL.D. SOL a low some creared in the parties of intellectual proerty law lord and was formand W&O dramited Natidy are stihe une and wo bunleif und maluarum daude final by sa po On July 29, 2009 Montage Grade Inc. (MG) e 20 persones for plant infringement. Oured contingency e pement with MC and all those the most awal spinat MG sutried to undertekster she settlements by giving me defendants in the mount On June 302011. Ward and Olle stopped the practicing low ar & Thermal Warmine up its low practice. By collecting outstanding Seal fers, W&D profesional yance policy epimed Apt. 2011. and Wao dat met purchase intrane polo in October 2012. MG Mind alepal ma parte complaini wao, and Worl alleine that is felice harme MG patent ziehts Decouse Olve, among other things failed to rely marrin frie be part of the woment to chur complaint, MG further alleged that wo and and we will be for motorom. By the time MG Medits 18&cade polley had expired, and W& Om Hund had so moment in the nuler vorne line the Benim or Olhos el presentation of NG Ward contends that he Listrielded from liability as a partner in LP and is therefore wet icarly able for the allegriffeval malinactice of his former partier Oliv. He thus argues that complaint against him should be admised Fasciale, Judge In addressing whether Ward is shielded from Olvo's alleged at practice, this Court looks to the statutory language to determine the Legislature's intent. When interpreting statute words are to be give their ordinary meaning and significance. The plan language of NJ.S.A. 42:1 A-1BCC) clearly expresses the Legislative intent that the partners of an LLP are shielded from liability for a fellow partner's acts as it states. An obligation of a partnership incurred while the partnership is an LLP, whether arising in contract, tort or otherwise, is solely the obligation of the partner ship. A partner is not personally liable, directly or indirectly by way of contribution or otherwise, for such an obligation sold by reason of being or so acting as a partner. Without LLP all partners are liable jointly and severally for all obligations of the partnership under the UPA, the status of an LLP remains effective until the LLP telf cancels its status of the LLP's status is revoked by the Department of the Treasury in the event the LLP Gils to file al report when due or pay the required filling fee." Since the status of W&O remains an LLP. the court is dismissing the legal practice claim crted by MG against Ward because he is not vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice of his for ser partner Olivo Judgment of the trial court is meersed: judgment affirming this decision by the Supreme Court of New Jersey Ethics and Compliance in Action You and your friends consider forming a consulting partnership. If you form the business as a parties ship, each partner has personal liability for all the contacts and forts of the partnership. If you form the business as an LLP, in general you and the other partners have no liabidity for partnership obligations beyond the sets of the LLP that is beyond each partner's equity interest in the business *As your form of business, will you choose the partnership or LLP - Isit ethical to be an LLP partner and to have liability limited to your equity interest in the LLP? Would a profit maximizer find it ethical to form an LLP? Would a utilitarian or rights theorist find it ethical Suppose that a bank knows the business is an LLP lends money to the LLP, but does not obtain the LLP partners individual promises to repay the loan. Is it ethical that the LLP partners are not able to the bank on the loan if the LLP sets are insufficient to repay the loan? Operation of Partnerships and Related Forms Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. Ward & Olivo, L.L.P 438 N.J. Super. 202 (App. Div. 2014), aff4, 139 A.34 30 (N.J. 2016) 38-15 Wand and Olio established defendant Ward & Olive, LLP (W&0), law firmeld in the Mactice of lectual perty low Ward and Otvo formed W&O as a limited liability partnership (LDP) par to the UP W&O landed a claims made professional liability insurance policy ang fee agreement with MG and filed a lawsuit (the underlying lawu) pun meldefonso MG de doing a al insurance policy de pole sertlements by giving those defendano here hole have the power to prodie wortement amount On June 30, 2011, Ward and Oliwe stopped acately practicine law as wao. Tercalen Waberen vinden de practice by collecting outstanding legal fees. W&Os professional Walley insurance policy expired on Aurent ke 701, and Wao u mos pranchen In October 2012, MG filed a legal malpractice complaint against wao, oro, and Ward alleelse that Ole's heat andet hammed MG's patent rights because Oliwo, among other things, Falled to require that mowa by rates or comme le le part of the element la the complaint, MG further alleged that W&O and Wand were vicariously liable for Oulu, acts or omiston. By dhe time MG filed complaint , W&O's claims made policy had expired, and W&O was uninsured Ward had no involument in the underlying lewat, the Wand contends that he is shielded from liability as a partner in an LLP and is therefore, not vicariously liable for the alleged legal malpractice of his former partner, Olivo. He thus argues that MG's complaint against him should be dismind settlements, or Olho's legal representation of MG Fasciale, Judge In addressing whether Ward is shielded from Olivo's alleged mal- practice, this Court looks to the statutory language to determine the Legislature's intent. When interpreting a statute, words are to be given their ordinary meaning and significance. The plain language of NJ.S.A. 42:1 A-18(c) clearly expresses the legislative intent that the partners of an LLP are shielded from liability for a fellow partner's acts as it states. "An obligation of a partnership incurred while the partnership is an LLP), whether arising in contract, tort, or otherwise, is solely the obligation of the partner ship. A partner is not personally liable, directly or indirectly, by way of contribution or otherwise, for such an obligation solely by reason of being or so acting as a partner." Without LLP status. all partners are liable jointly and severally for all obligations of the partnership... Under the UPA, the status of an LLP remains effective until the LLP itself cancels its status, or the LLP status is revoked by the Department of the Treasury in the event the LLP "falls to file an annual report when doc or pay the required filling for." Since the status of W&O remains an LLP, the court is driving the legal malpractice claim asserted by MG against Ward because he is not vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice of his for mer partner Olivo Judgment of the trial court is reversed judgment affirming this decision by the Supreme Court of New Jersey Ethics and Compliance in Action You and your friends consider forming a consulting - Is it ethical to be an LLP partner and to have liability limited partnership. If you form the business as a partner to your equity interest in the LLPT Would a profit mulier ship, cach partner has personal liability for all the find it ethical to form an LLPT Would a utilitarian or rights contacts and torts of the partnership. If you form the business as theorist find it ethical? an LLP. in general you and the other partners have no hability Suppose that a bank knows the business is an LLP lenda for partnership obligations beyond the assets of the LLP. that is money to the LLP, but does not obtain the LLP partners beyond each partner's equity interest in the business, individual promises to repay the loan. Is it ethical that the As your form of business, will you choose the partnership LLP partners are not liable to the bank on the loan if the LLP's assets are insufficient to repay the loan? or LLP

Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert

See Answer