UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1782
JAMES D. HABURN; STEFANIE A. RODEN,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
JOHN F. KILBY; THE BANK OF FINCASTLE;
JOHN/JANE DOE, Owners/Co-owners,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-04-336-7)
Submitted: December 16, 2005 Decided: May 3, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James D. Haburn, Stefanie A. Roden, Appellants Pro Se. C. Jacob
Ladenheim, Fincastle, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James D. Haburn and Stefanie A. Roden appeal the district
court’s order dismissing their civil rights claim that the Bank of
Fincastle excessively fined their partnership’s bank account. The
district court found that they lacked standing because they did not
establish an interest in the bank account and granted the Bank’s
summary judgment motion to dismiss the case. Finding error, we
vacate the district court’s order and remand for further
proceedings.
We review the grant or denial of summary judgment de
novo. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986).
Haburn, Stefanie Roden, and Deirdre Roden formed a partnership.
The partners agreed that Deirdre Roden would open and manage their
bank account. The bank account was in the partnership name. In
Virginia, each partner is an agent of the partnership for the
purpose of its business. Va. Code Ann. § 50-73.91 (2005). “An act
of a partner, including the execution of an instrument in the
partnership name . . . binds the partnership.” Id. Thus, the acts
of Deirdre Roden were acts of the partnership. Further, while
Deirdre Roden was the only authorized name on the account, Haburn
and Stefanie Roden both made deposits and withdrawals from the
account on several occasions. The money in the account was
partnership money and “property acquired by a partnership is
- 2 -
property of the partnership and not of the partners individually.”
Va. Code Ann. § 50-73.89 (2005).
Moreover, in Virginia, “all partners are liable jointly
and severally for all obligations of the partnership.” Va. Code
Ann. § 50-73.96 (2005). As a consequence, Haburn and Stefanie
Roden were liable for the obligations of the partnership, which
included any debts or fees incurred by the bank account. We thus
conclude that Haburn and Stefanie Roden had an interest in the bank
account as partners and had standing to raise their claims.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for
further proceedings.* We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
*
Although Haburn and Stefanie Roden have argued the merits of
their claims on appeal, those claims are more properly addressed in
the first instance by the district court. Our disposition of this
appeal does not indicate any view as to the nature or outcome of
the proceedings on remand.
- 3 -