For those wanting a simple, no hassle divorce, summary dissolution is an option. It hinges on not having many assets, a low debt load and no request for spousal support.

Divorces are never fun to go through, and if there was a way to avoid the hassle, anxiety, stress and anger, most couples would jump at the chance. In California, there is a way to avoid the drama and get straight to the point. It’s called “Summary Dissolution”. If going to court is necessary because the parties can’t or don’t want to cooperate, then that option remains available.

“If you don’t really want to drag the kids and yourself through a messy, long drawn-out and nasty divorce, find out if summary dissolution is an option for you. This means you don’t even need to speak to a judge and will only have to fill out a minimal number of forms. Sure, it sounds easy, but there are exceptions, of course, and so it’s typically wise to seek the advice of a family lawyer so you know your rights and can get the explanation in plain English, rather than legal jargon. Our firm is noted for making legalese legal-easy to understand,” said Anthony J. Spotora, managing attorney of his Los Angeles law firm, which practices family law.

Not everyone is qualified to get a summary dissolution. “So, if you don’t qualify, you need to go the regular route to get a divorce. How do you know if you don’t qualify? I usually have a list of questions for the client that deal with living arrangements. For instance, I need to know if they have been married or living as registered domestic partners for less than five years. In addition, one of the requirements to qualify for summary dissolution is that the couple has no children – period,” Spotora said.

Another requirement that needs to be met when applying for a summary dissolution is that the parties do not own or have an interest in any property and if they have a debt load, they must have accrued less than $5,000 in debt since the marriage/partnership. They must also not own more than $33,000 worth of property bought together.

“It gets even more complex, in that you can’t own any separate property valued over $33,000, you have to agree that you will not seek support, and you have to sign a property agreement that splits what debts and property you do have. You can see why we advise divorcees to call us and get the full rundown on what they need to qualify for a summary dissolution. In some cases, they may not meet the qualifications and we’d need to go to court, but we won’t know that until we’ve spoken with them,” Spotora said.

When it comes to divorce and wanting to save time and money, it’s well worth talking to a highly qualified attorney, who will outline what options exist and how they may affect the proceedings. It’s better to have all the information needed to make an informed decision on how to proceed in the least stressful manner, particularly if children are involved.

To learn more, visit https://www.spotoralaw.com/.

So you’re a talented songwriter and damn it, you deserve a big publishing deal! Now, if only a well-connected, successful, efficient music publisher would listen to your music with the same enthusiasm in which you created it, it’d be a done deal! You’d be set!

So, how-oh-how do you get to that music publisher so he or she can offer you the deal you have worked so hard for and that you most certainly deserve? How do you find that person that will share in your passion that transcends into your music, who really understands each song, who will do everything he or she can to sell and/or license those songs over and over again?

Well, think back for a minute to all of the networking events you’ve attended; to the places where you wrote those songs for countless hours; to the pitch meetings you landed; to those encouraging meetings you held with your manager. Now, think of the one thing each of those places or events had in common → you!

Your publisher is your greatest untapped resource and quite likely, it is you! Who better knows your music? Who better can you entrust it with? Who better to really work hard for the money? Who better to run your business, than you? Likely, nobody!

Upon inspection, you would find that many, if not most successful songwriters in any large publishing company are, more times than not, persons that first became successful music publishers on their own. They simply learned, some for the sake of survival, how to pitch their music; how to develop and manage their catalog; how to secure and protect their copyrights; how to build not only a business plan, but a business team and; how to create a presence or ‘buzz’ for themselves in the infamous ‘industry.’ And, once they had done so and in turn, established for themselves an operable entity, they then also stood in a much greater position to enter into a coventure relationship with a larger, more productive and more lucrative company.

Taking this strategic and time-tested approach to building your career can prove invaluable! It is simply reasonable and not only common but, common sense, that a large publishing company is much more likely to coventure with an established, smaller company than it is to bring on a beginning writer where they would have to assume a greater risk and the consequent burden of making the relationship successful.

Also, you may wish to keep in mind that most publishing deals nowadays are co-publishing deals whereby the writer receives 100% of the writer’s share of income and also a portion of the publisher’s monies. Does this sound like a deal that favors the writer? Well that’s only because it does! Maybe not such a terrible idea after all, this be-your-own-publisher idea, eh!?

If you’re still finding this to be a daunting task and need inspiration, just read the biographies of songwriting legends like Carole King and Jerry Leiber who followed a similar path. You’ll see that it may be more fiction than fact that days existed where songwriters worked in isolation, tapping their foot to the beat of their own drummer while their songs were being shopped all over town. Rather, an aggressive, strategic and well-thought out approach that is focused on shaping those musically-inclined dreams into reality is not only time-tested, but reasonably, provides more probable results.

Are there any guarantees? Well of course not! You don’t need anyone to tell you that. However, while common sense is sometimes not all that common; common sense here will tell you that creating your own publishing company and working hard to develop not only its operations but, its value, stands a much better chance of tendering you the riches and success you seek than does waiting for someone to show up at your door and offer it to you. Don’t get me wrong. . . it can happen; but I might rather choose the former approach . . .at least until someone comes a-knockin’!

While no one wants to think of a marriage as a business, it often is just that. The partners work together to run it by agreement.

One of the more controversial areas of California divorce law centers on whether or not to have a prenuptial agreement. Many feel it’s not exactly the epitome of being amorous. And frankly, it really isn’t all that romantic, but it’s necessary in case something happens later. Not being protected can be a major disaster to the spouse who happens to have less money and/or assets than the other. It’s not that a prenup is intentionally a power play involving finances, but some cases turn out that way when the marriage comes apart. California is a community property state, so everything is split 50/50 unless a prenup says otherwise.

Prenuptials are not just for the wealthy, although you’d wonder about that reading the newspapers and watching television. Mostly, it seems, that only celebrities opt to have a prenup. In reality, they are for everyone and anyone who wants one. There’s a very common myth floating around that a couple doesn’t need to go this route if they don’t have much money between them. This is not the case.

Virtually anything and everything can be the focus of a prenuptial agreement. Getting around the “not so romantic” stigma associated with them often works if the couple just has a very frank and wide-ranging discussion about how each of them handles finances before they get married. Finding out later that the husband spends thousands on sports equipment, while the wife thinks the money should be set aside for the children’s education, is not exactly conducive to a happy, well-balanced marriage. The bottom line is if you don’t want surprises later, get things out in the open now, because no one knows what will happen.

What if one of the spouses comes into more money in the future, as a result of their business or a talent they have? If you know how to handle the division of community property in advance of any possible divorce, you’ll be well ahead of the game and won’t necessarily have to face the bitter acrimony that sometimes accompanies divorces without a prenup in place. If you don’t know how to go about setting that kind of agreement up, contact an experienced attorney.

This brings up another very common belief, that prenuptials really only protect the partner with the most money and take it away from the partner that doesn’t have much. The reality is that prenuptial agreements are designed to protect both parties.

It should also be noted that just about anything can be written into a prenup, but that doesn’t mean that everything and the kitchen sink must be included in the agreement. These agreements can either be incredibly complex or strikingly simple. It’s up to the parties to decide what they want.

By the way, living together without the benefit of a marriage license is not the way to get around not having a prenuptial. Some couples think if they just live together, the live-in has no claim to the other’s property or income. Wrong. The person making the money and with the assets could be taking a huge risk just living together. It’s called palimony. If you want to protect what you’ve got, get a prenup drafted and signed.

Anthony Spotora is a Los Angeles family lawyer and Los Angeles business attorney. To learn more, visit Spotoralaw.com.

Have you ever seen this brief legal ditty? Sure you have. And whether you know it or not, you likely accept contracts containing this language on a weekly, maybe even daily basis.

Ever valet park your car or use the services of your local dry cleaner; or, maybe you have attended an amusement park? Well then, without signing anything, you have just entered into an “adhesion contract”.

Adhesion contracts are contracts between two parties that do not allow for negotiation — it’s take it or leave it! However, can you realistically leave it? What would your options be anyway? Should you park your car elsewhere or take your clothes to a different cleaner? Won’t you just be faced with the same issue there? And what about that pocket size agreement? Will it really limit their liability? I mean really, who can even read that boilerplate it’s so small?!

And how about the long-form adhesion contract that you actually sign; a residential lease agreement, for example? Were you afforded the opportunity to negotiate its terms or, did the landlord stand in a position of such superior bargaining power that you signed it, knowing also that it would not be any different down the street?

Theoretically, the common debate relating to contracts of adhesion have reasonably focused on whether or not courts should enforce them. On the one hand, they undeniably fulfill an important role of efficiency in the marketplace. These standard form agreements can substantially reduce transaction costs by eliminating the need for buyers and sellers to negotiate the terms of every sale of goods or services. However, they may also consequently result in unjust terms being agreed to by the accepting party. Few would disagree that it is simply unfair for the seller to avoid all liability or to unilaterally give themselves the right to terminate the agreement.

So then, are these contracts enforceable?

In common law jurisdictions, these standard form agreements are treated like any other contract and a signature or other manifestation of acceptance and intent to be legally bound will bind the acceptor. This reality, however, has caused for many common law jurisdictions to develop special rules that govern such situations. As a general rule, courts in these jurisdictions will interpret the standard form agreement contra proferentem which, literally means — ‘against the proffering person.’

Most of the United States, however, follows the Uniform Commercial Code which, similar to the common law jurisdictions mentioned above, has provisions relating specifically to standard form contracts and; when a standard form contract is found to be a contract of adhesion, it is given special scrutiny.

For a contract to be treated as a contract of adhesion, it must be:

1. Presented on a standard form and on a “take it or leave it” basis; and
2. Give the consumer no ability to negotiate because of their unequal bargaining position.

Next, the “special scrutiny” may be performed in a number of ways, a few of which are:

1. If the term was beyond the reasonable expectations of the “adhering” party, the court can find it to not be enforceable; or
2. Under the equitable principles of the Doctrine of Unconscionability, unconscionability may be found and the contract held unenforceable when there is an “absence of meaningful choice on the part of one party due to the one-sided contract provisions, together with terms which are so oppressive that no reasonable person would make them and no fair and honest person would accept them.” (Fanning v. Fritz’s Pontiac-Cadillac-Buick Inc.)

So…the good news is: recourse may be available for the underdog!

The bad news is: both parties will have to expend time and money for a court to determine if the adhesion contract is enforceable.

“Happy Birthday to You” is likely the most well-known and most frequently sung song in the world.  For nearly a century, this brief 4-line ditty has been sung to birthday celebrants everywhere irrespective of age, status, race or creed.  It has been sung in space; it has been sung under water; it has even been mechanically manipulated into greeting cards, watches, music boxes. . . the list goes on.  As such, its omnipresence serves as but one reason for the surprise received when people discover that it is copyrighted and therefore protected by federal law!  That’s right – each time you sing “Happy Birthday to You”, you may be committing copyright infringement!

So who owns the “Happy Birthday” song?

The media conglomerate, AOL Time Warner, owns the “Happy Birthday” song, that’s who!

It all began in Kentucky in 1893 with two sisters, Mildred and Patty Hill.  Both originally nursery school and kindergarten teachers, respectively, Mildred’s career took a musical turn to that of a composer, organist, concert pianist and a musical scholar.  While working at the same school her sister had become principal of years later, the two created a simple melody known as, “Good Morning to All”, for teachers to use when welcoming students to class each day. It went like this:

Good morning to you,
Good morning to you,
Good morning dear children,
Good morning to all.

The Hill’s song became more commonly known as “Good Morning to You” and was published that same year in a songbook titled, “Song Stories for the Kindergarten”.  Thirty-one years later, a gentleman named Robert Coleman edited the songbook, replacing the sisters’ lyrics with a second verse, “Happy Birthday to You”.  In 1924, and without the sisters’ permission, these popular new lyrics began being published as a second stanza to “Good Morning to You” in a number of books and eventually, the original lyrics disappeared altogether.

Within a few short years, the catchy song had made its debut in two Broadway musicals and was even a part of Western Union’s first “singing telegram.”  The Hills, however, were not compensated for any of the song’s uses.  Subsequently, a third Hill sister, Jessica, who had administered the copyright to “Good Morning to All”, filed suit to prove that “Happy Birthday to You” was her sisters’ song only with altered lyrics.  Using the “substantial similarity” test, the Court agreed and, in 1934, the Hills were officially awarded the copyrights to the song.

So, is Grandma going to get sued for singing “Happy Birthday” to little Susie?  Most likely, no.  Royalties are due for commercial uses of the song such as playing or singing it for profit, using it in movies, television programs or in stage shows, or incorporating it into musical products such as watches and greeting cards.  Royalties are also due for the “public performance” of the song which is defined by copyright law as performances which occur “at a place open to the public, or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.”  Therefore, crooning the song to family members and friends at home is fine; however, performing such a copyrighted work in a public setting requires a license.  Ever notice on some sitcoms how the crowd sings, “For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow” in lieu of “Happy Birthday to You” or; how certain restaurants have their own rendition of the “Happy Birthday” song?  Well, now you know. . . they’re not just being creative.

Don’t think they’ll catch ya?  Tell that to the 6,000+ summer camps, including the Girl Scouts, that received letters warning them that they had to pay royalties for public performances of any copyright works.  It’s sad to think of the camp counselor too frightened to sing “Puff the Magic Dragon” around a camp fire, don’t you think?  Nevertheless, publishing houses like ASCAP and BMI have field agents on payroll for this very reason.  And when pursued, settlements may be quietly reached outside of court for a few-hundred to a few-thousand dollars, but, it’s worth noting that copyright law provides for fines of up to $30,000 for each infringement and up to $150,000 if the infringement is willful, plus attorney’s fees.  Not such a happy birthday after all!

So when is this song and dance over?  Well, after acquiring the company that held the rights to “Happy Birthday to You” for a reported $25 million in 1998, current copyright law provides AOL Time Warner with rights to the song until at least 2030.  And seeing as the song is estimated to bring in about $2 million a year in royalties, it’s doubtful they’ll ignore many royalty-deserving opportunities.  Consequently, before you perform your next impromptu “Happy Birthday” rendition in public, you may want to look around to see if anyone appears to not only be entertained but, is taking notes.

The creative process that is so closely tied to the success of the entertainment industry often raises questions regarding ownership of creative works. While copyrights usually rest with the creator of a work, certain agreements can be made that transfer these rights to another party.

Generally, copyrights rest with the author or authors who originally create a work. However, the Copyright Act of 1976 contains a major exception, the “Work Made for Hire” Doctrine, which challenges the fundamental principle that copyright ownership lies with the individual who creates the work. In the case of a “Work Made for Hire,” the party for whom the work was completed is considered the author and thus holds the copyrights to the work created rather than the party who actually authored the work.

A Work Made for Hire is not, however, any work that you pay someone to create for you. In addition, it is not any work that you and a developer simply agree is a Work Made for Hire. Rather, “Work Made for Hire” is a specifically defined term in Copyright Law and applies only when certain conditions are met.

Disputes over what constitutes a “Work Made for Hire” often arise over two main issues: the distinction between an employee and a non-employee or independent contractor and whether or not the work in question qualifies as one or more of the nine categories outlined in the Copyright Act.

Section 101 of the Copyright Act defines a “work made for hire” as either:

1.  a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or

2.  a work by a freelancer (independent contractor) which is specially ordered or commissioned for use as a translation, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a contribution to a collective work, as an atlas, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as a supplementary work such as a preface to a book, a forward or a musical arrangement, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.

If the condition of category one is met, copyright ownership belongs to the employer unless an employment contract specifies that the creation of copyrightable material is not within the scope of employment. If the creation of the work falls outside the scope of employment then the employee, and not the employer, would have copyright ownership of the work.

If the conditions in category two are met, then the party hiring the freelancer would own the copyrights. If, however, these requirements are not strictly followed and the work falls outside the nine categories enumerated by the Copyright Act or a written agreement does not exist, then the freelancer would retain copyright ownership in the work.

Los Angeles intellectual property attorney, Anthony Spotora, commented, “It is the lack of a written instrument specifying the intended “Work-Made-for-Hire” relationship with independent contractors that commonly creates “Work-Made-for-Hire” copyright ownership issues. All too often, the intended owner seeks to argue that a “Work-Made-for-Hire” relationship was agreed upon, although it was stated only verbally. Subsequently, authorship of the work at issue ultimately winds up with its creator, rather that the intended owner. The second biggest misperception in freelance arrangements is that a written agreement specifying that a work is intended to be created on a “Work-Made-for-Hire” basis makes it so when, in fact, that is only the case if the work falls into one of the nine exceptions listed in Section 101 of the U.S. Copyright Act.”

Anthony Spotora is a Los Angeles entertainment lawyer and Los Angeles business attorney. To learn more, visit Spotoralaw.com.

&nbsp

Selling show ideas in Hollywood is no easy feat. It not only requires the ability to create a great pitch, but also the know-how and willingness to follow established procedures for selling a show.

In order to sell a show idea, it’s necessary to create a great pitch. There are several elements that should be included in a pitch: a logline, a synopsis, and a treatment. A logline is a one-sentence description of the show. A synopsis is a brief summary of the show including information about the main characters and the theme of the show. A treatment is much like a synopsis of a show idea but is a more inclusive document which includes detailed descriptions of the characters and the show’s plot. Writing a treatment is an essential step as it is the primary medium through which show ideas are typically presented to TV producers and executives.

As an artist, you will want to determine which networks to submit your show idea to. You will want to consider the nature of your programming and whether or not it is in alignment with the types of shows each network produces. Once the appropriate networks have been identified, you should learn the submission guidelines for each. Some networks may accept unsolicited treatments and show pitches but, these are of the minority. The majority of networks require artists to have an agent or even an entertainment lawyer acting as his or her representative. Knowing and following the proper procedures for each network is an essential step in increasing an artist’s odds of having their show idea accepted.

Now, it is no secret that securing an agent can be a very challenging task. In order to overcome this challenge, artists must be willing to network; they should consider engaging a credible, proven manager and they would be wise to also consider developing a more formal, strategic plan for success with their entertainment attorney.

For artists who are able to secure an agent, he or she can help connect them with development executives – individuals who have the power to turn ideas into paychecks. When meeting with a development executive, artists must be able to accurately convey the concept of their show in a manner that is simple yet intriguing. This is where a well-written logline, synopsis, and treatment come into play. If an artist has taken the time to prepare these documents properly, the executive will be able to see the show’s potential.

Once an artist successfully pitches a show idea, it is more likely to be optioned for purchase. At this stage, an artist should utilize the expertise of their entertainment attorney to help negotiate the specific terms of the agreement. Most often, the writer will be paid an option fee up front for the company to have the exclusive rights to sell and/or produce the project with a network or third-party buyer. Once the option is exercised, the writer will then receive the negotiated purchase price and may additionally receive a small percentage of participation in the fees received by the production company for producing the show.

Navigating these negotiations can be difficult and an experienced entertainment attorney can offer artists the guidance they need to successfully sell their show ideas.

To learn more, visit https://www.spotoralaw.com/.

So what happens when your business name becomes someone else’s domain name? What happens when a layman registers www.mcdonalds.com before the billion burger server commonly known as “McDonald’s” does? What about when Hasbro and an adult entertainment website both desire the rights to www.candyland.com, but the adult site beats Hasbro to the proverbial punch or; when an MTV Video Jockey purchases www.mtv.com, but then leaves MTV? What happens?

For a time, these amounted to little more than good questions. It was clear that intellectual property rights were in question, being jeopardized and/or infringed upon, but the courts had not yet faced these new age digital era issues. Naturally, litigation ensued; actually, it boomed! Consequently, it also became increasingly obvious that with more than 3,000,000 registered trademarks and service marks; more than 33,000,000 internet domain names having been registered and; with the advent of phraseology like, “cybersquatting” and “typosquatting,” these issues were not going to quickly dissipate on their own. Subsequently, a coalition of internet business, technical, academic and user communities joined forces to find a means of resolution; resolution that would be short of a future bursting at the seams with litigation.

In October 1998, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was developed and, amongst other things, this private-sector nonprofit organization became responsible for the management and coordination of the internet domain name system (DNS). As part of its policy, ICANN enacted the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) to provide a mechanism for trademark owners to recover domain names from cybersquatters. Moreover, all domain name registrars having the authority to grant top-level domains (i.e., .com, .net, etc.) would now be required to follow the UDRP which included a streamlined “cyber arbitration” procedure to more quickly and less expensively resolve domain name ownership disputes involving trademarks.

In order to win a UDRP arbitration, the trademark owner/complainant must prove each of the following elements:

1. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
2. The domain name owner does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
3. The domain name owner registered the domain name and is using it in “bad faith”.

If the trademark owner is successful in proving these elements, an award is granted whereby the registrar of the domain name is instructed to cancel, transfer or otherwise make changes to the domain name registration.

In light of the examples questioned above:

1. Candyland.com is now safely in the hands of Hasbro;
2. McDonald’s made a charitable contribution at the domain holder’s request to transfer the domain name; and
3. MTV settled out of court with Video Jockey, Adam Curry.

“Damn Bratz!” is surely echoing through the hallways of mega toymaker, Mattel, Inc., as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the Barbie doll maker’s multi-million dollar verdict and injunction against competitor, MGA Entertainment, maker of the Bratz doll line.

Presiding Chief Judge Alex Kozinski stated that not only did former U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Larson err in ordering MGA Entertainment, Inc. to transfer the Bratz IP portfolio to Mattel but, that the ruling was an “abuse of discretion.”

“Unlike the relatively demure Barbie, the urban, multi-ethnic and trendy Bratz dolls have attitude,” Kozinski commented.  “America thrives on competition; Barbie, the all-American girl, will too.”

In August 2008, a federal jury concluded that former Barbie designer, Carter Bryant, was under contract with Mattel when he sold some of his sketches to MGA Entertainment and that those sketches ultimately led to the production of the Bratz doll line.  Consequently, the jury ordered MGA to pay Mattel $10 million in damages (of the nearly $2 billion sought) and further granted it a constructive trust over MGA’s entire Bratz IP portfolio.

“Even assuming that MGA took some ideas wrongfully, it added tremendous value by turning the ideas into products and, eventually, a popular and highly profitable brand”, the three-judge appellate panel said in an opinion (click to view opinion) written by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. “It is not equitable to transfer this billion dollar brand – the value of which is overwhelmingly the result of MGA’s legitimate efforts – because it may have started with two misappropriated names.”

It appears that the 9th Circuit Court has reaffirmed the long-standing principle that copyrights cover only the particular expression of an idea, but not the idea itself.

Whether pertaining to your personal or professional life, chances are you have entered into, or sought to enter into a partnership at some point.  For some, it provides a sense of security; for others, a dinner drink led to a friendly discussion about an idea you had and WHAM, you’re going to move on that idea together – as partners, or; for those timid-hearted types, perhaps you gravitated toward a partnership because you simply wanted half the responsibility, half the risk, and half the potential blame.

Whatever your cause, and whatever your (personal) purpose, you could stand to save yourself a lot of time, frustration and money by knowing up front what sort of partnership you’re actually getting into.

Whereas some people use ‘partnership’ more as a term of art (i.e., corporation owners may call themselves ‘partners’, but that does not necessarily make it so), there are, in fact, a variety of legally recognized partnerships.  They are: (1) General Partnerships; (2) Limited Partnerships; (3) Limited Liability Partnerships; (4) Limited Liability Companies and; (5) Joint Ventures. And of these different types of partnerships – some governed by corporate law and still others governed more by contract law – the one that is of particular interest in this article is that of the “General Partnership”.

Attorneys are often surprised to find the staggering number of parties involved in general partnerships who believe they are being afforded certain corporate law advantages.  Let’s take a moment to touch upon a bit of the confusion.

A General Partnership is like a sole proprietorship except that there are two (2) or more persons conducting business under one name.  Unlike Limited Liability Companies, for example, no articles need to be filed with the Secretary of State, nor does the partnership even need to enter into a written partnership agreement (although it has been considered a terrible idea not to). A significant difference between formally established partnerships (i.e., LLC’s, LLP’s, etc.) and that of a general partnership is that each partner in a general partnership is jointly and severally liable for the actions and debts of the partnership.  Since any partner may bind the partnership, the other partners may be held liable for actions, contracts and/or debts in which they didn’t even know existed.  Take that one step further — partners can even be held personally liable for the acts of agents or employees that had apparent authority to bind the partnership.

So, for those of you not wishing to formally establish a partnership at the state level, and, whether you are willing to entertain and execute a partnership agreement or not, you may wish to have a better understanding of the risky business you could be entering into, or, may already be involved in, as a partner in a general partnership.