Vohland v. Sweet

433 N.E.2d 860 (Ind Ct. App. 1982)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Sweet (P) as a youngster began working for Charles Vohland as an hourly employee in a nursery operated by Charles. In 1963, Charles retired, and Paul Vohland (D) started Vohland's nursery. At that time, P's status changed. P was to get a 20% share of the net profit of the enterprise after all expenses were paid. No partnership returns were ever filed, and a schedule C was used, and P's share was listed as a commission and D also filed a schedule C-3 for self-employment social security. D handled all the operations of the business and borrowed money solely in his own name. P managed the physical aspects of the nursery and supervised the care of the nursery stock and performance of contracts with customers. Evidence presented at trial was contradictory, and P showed evidence that the cost of growing the nursery stock was deducted from profits before his 20% was given to him. P also introduced evidence that the current nursery stock was worth in excess of $284,000 with all inventory exceeding $293,000. P claimed that he was due his share of this inventory as it was paid from with his share of the profits. D testified that the inventory was depleted in 1963 but that it was essentially the same and that all P was doing was merely replacing the depleted inventory. P also testified about verbal assurances between the two as well as his demanding that his name be on the title to a truck. P testified that he intended to enter into a partnership with D. D denied this testimony. There was no contention that P had every made any capital contributions. The dispute was whether this arrangement created a partnership. The trial court gave the judgment to P and D appealed.