Business Court finds no partnership existed between parties

The plaintiffs failed to produce evidence establishing a partnership, because a minority partner lacked unilateral authority to confer ownership, the North Carolina Business Court has ruled, granting the defendants’ motion for limited reconsideration and amended its prior summary judgment ruling, ultimately entering judgment for defendants on plaintiffs’ partnership-based claims.

Plaintiff Jared Londry claimed that he became a partner in a real estate venture, defendant Stream Realty Partners-Charlotte, based on an alleged oral agreement with defendant Daniel Farrar. Londry asserted that Farrar promised to transfer half of his ownership interest, thereby creating a partnership and giving rise to fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs sued for breach of a partnership agreement and breach of fiduciary duty, among others.

In an earlier summary judgment order, the court denied defendants’ motion on the partnership-related claims, reasoning that the absence of the formal partnership agreement in the record prevented it from determining, as a matter of law, whether a partnership existed. Defendants subsequently moved for reconsideration under Rule 54(b), arguing both that newly presented evidence, the partnership agreement, clarified the issue and that the prior ruling rested on legal error.

The court first rejected defendants’ reliance on the partnership agreement as “new evidence,” finding that it had always been available and could have been submitted earlier. Rule 54(b) does not permit parties to relitigate issues or introduce evidence that could have been previously presented. However, the court proceeded to reconsider its prior ruling on the independent ground of clear error.

Upon reconsideration, the court concluded that it had misapplied the burden of proof at summary judgment. While defendants, as movants, initially bore the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, they had done so by presenting substantial evidence that Londry was not a partner. The burden then shifted to Londry to produce specific evidence demonstrating a triable issue.

The court found that Londry failed to meet this burden. His claim rested primarily on his own testimony regarding Farrar’s alleged promise, but he offered no evidence that Farrar, who held only a minority interest, had authority to unilaterally confer partnership status or transfer ownership. Under North Carolina partnership law, actions outside the ordinary course of business require authorization from other partners. Without such evidence, Londry could not establish co-ownership, an essential element of a partnership.

Because no partnership existed, the court held that Londry’s claim for breach of a partnership agreement necessarily failed. Likewise, his fiduciary duty claim collapsed, as such duties depended entirely on the existence of a partnership relationship. The court therefore granted summary judgment for defendants on both claims and amended its prior order accordingly, while leaving other portions of the earlier ruling intact.

Londry v. Stream Realty Partners LP (Lawyers Weekly No. 020-019-26, 10 pp.) (Julianna Theall Earp, J.) 2026 NCBC 19. TLG Law, by David G. Redding and Tyler A. Rhoades, for Plaintiffs Jared Raymond Londry and Pointblank Ventures, LLC. Jackson Lewis P.C., by Daniel Leake II and Kathleen K. Lucchesi, and Moore & Van Allen PLLC, by Scott M. Tyler and Katherine McDiarmid, for Defendants Stream Realty Partners, L.P., Stream Realty PartnersCharlotte, L.P., and Daniel Farrar. North Carolina Business Court