ÿWPC& …#†VUNÜ %* 0(04Xl 0 l{ 0Dç 0J+ 0Tu 0^É 0h' 0r 0| 0†} 0 1u“ U , 0d4 U,˜ U >Ä B)DC+ AMnU*»å:V;‘—ÝPõ D3E Bx• 0@Ùݶv~ÆvÓD AO$Æf$ 0D,% 0Dp% D/´% Bã%˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0úØP —4N×BЧ ^P(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡3x23|x»((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òDecember€21,€1995ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€"ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó 0Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€statute€identifies€the€"[r]ights€of€retiring€or€deceased€partner€on€continuation€ofÏbusiness."€Its€provisions€will€be€set€forth€in€more€detail€throughout€this€opinion.Ì LÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝPartners€may€also€contract€for€the€business's€continuation€after€dissolution.€òòò ò€See€Youngóóó ó,Ï203€S.W.2d€at€385.€€The€partnership€agreement€between€these€parties€does€not€expressly€soÏprovide.Ì üÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€indicates€that€MKS€Enterprises€primarily€consists€of€real€estate€investmentsÏand€the€collection€of€royalties.Ì wÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€do€not€find€our€decision€inconsistent€with€òòò òShepherd€v.€Griffinóóó ó,€as€a€thoroughÏreading€of€that€opinion€€reveals€that€the€court€made€no€specific€finding€as€to€whether€the€businessÏcould€€continue,€but€only€doubted€its€feasibility.Ì ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€establishes€that€Griffin€objected€to€this€ruling€in€the€trial€court.Ì FÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€court€is€cognizant€of€the€fact€that€litigation€before€the€trial€court€included€Griffin'sÏargument€of€his€right€to€a€"full€share€of€the€profits€until€distribution"€as€addressed€in€his€"ResponseÏto€Shepherd's€Brief€On€Accounting€Parameters."€€We€find€this€insufficient€to€constitute€an€electionÏfor€purposes€of€the€statute€as€Griffin's€argument€appears€made€from€the€belief€that€the€partnershipÏbusiness€would€be€wound€up€and€its€assets€liquidated.Ì++++'ÿÿdxd d þÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€is€in€reference€to€the€original€accounting€which€was€before€this€Court€for€review€inÏòòò òShepherd€v.€Griffinóóó ó.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ÏÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€suggests€no€express€agreement€between€the€parties€on€this€issue.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€indicates€that€the€bankruptcy€trustee€did€not€limit€his€collection€of€monies€toÏGriffin's€dissolution€share€because€of€his€belief€that€Griffin's€"substantial"€ownership€of€assetsÏultimately€transferred€to€the€partnership€constituted€an€avoidable€preference.€€Thus,€a€"workableÏand€operable"€agreement€was€reached,€precluding€any€procedural€"attack"€on€the€partnership€itself.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌó óà à)ò òÌMARY€KATHRYN€SHEPHERD,ó óà à)à àShelby€County€Circuit€CourtÌà à)à àNo.€94294€R.D.Ì€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellant.à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.A.€No.€02A01„9406„CV„00130Ìà à)Ìò òJAMES€ARTHUR€GRIFFIN,ó óà à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendant/Appellee.à à)Ìà à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÙ€€ÙßL€!# ;+'h|8u` Å `€€LßÌFrom€the€Circuit€Court€of€Shelby€County€at€Memphis.Ìò òHonorable€George€H.€Brown,€Jr.,€Judge€ó óÌÌÌÌò òStephen€P.€Haleó ó,€Ìò òSteven€W.€Likensó ó,Ìò òJennifer€Ziegenhornó ó,ÌMemphis,€TennesseeÌOf€Counsel:€€ARMSTRONG,€ALLEN,€PREWITT,€GENTRY,€JOHNSTON€Ì&€HOLMES,€Memphis,€Tennesseeò ò€ó óÌAttorneys€for€Plaintiff/Appellant.ÌÌÌÌò òRobert€F.€Milleró ó,Ìò òNimmo€Bhagató ó,ÌMemphis,€TennesseeÌOf€Counsel:€THOMAS€J.€WALSH,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òREVERSED€IN€PART,€AFFIRMED€IN€PART€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òHIGHERS,€J.€ó ó:€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓÓÓà àThis€case€concerns€the€final€settlement€of€accounts€between€former€partners,€JamesÏArthur€Griffin€("Griffin"€or€"Appellee")€and€Mary€Kathryn€Shepherd€("Shepherd"€or€"Appellant"),Ïand€entails€a€review€of€the€accounting€and€distribution€of€partnership€assets€as€determined€by€theÏtrial€court.€€We€first€considered€this€matter€in€òòò òShepherd€v.€Griffinóóó ó,€776€S.W.2d€119€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1989),€wherein€the€underlying€facts€are€more€fully€set€forth.€€For€our€purposes,€we€reiterateÏthat€the€parties€sought€divorce€in€early€1984,€but€prior€to€entry€of€a€final€decree,€entered€into€aÏbusiness€partnership,€known€as€Griffin€Enterprises,€in€which€they€transferred€all€of€their€assets.€€ItÏis€evident€from€the€record€that€Griffin's€contribution€was€quite€substantial,€having€been€veryÏsuccessful€in€the€1970s€as€a€musical€composer€and€performer€with€the€pop/rock€group€"Bread."€ÏThe€partnership€agreement€provided€for€a€one„third€distribution€to€Griffin€and€two„thirds€toÏShepherd.€€To€further€complicate€matters,€Griffin€filed€a€Chapter€11€bankruptcy€on€March€13,Ï1984.ÌÌà àIn€òòò òShepherdóóó ó,€we€established€the€date€of€dissolution€as€March€13,€1984€and,€inÏagreeing€with€Griffin's€contentions€on€appeal,€remanded€the€case€"for€a€proper€accounting€andÏdistribution€of€the€partnership"€pursuant€to€partnership€law.€€òòò òShepherdóóó ó,€776€S.W.2d€at€122.€ÏUpon€remand,€the€trial€court€entered€its€"Amended€Findings€of€Fact€and€Conclusions€of€Law,"Ïdetermining€that€Griffin€had€impliedly€consented€to€Shepherd's€continuation€of€the€business€(nowÏknown€as€MKS€Enterprises)€and,€thus,€became€a€creditor€of€the€partnership€in€accordance€withÏT.C.A.€ðð€61„1„141× ƒ$ ××  ×€as€of€the€date€of€dissolution.€€The€court€further€found€that€Griffin€had€electedÏprofits€in€lieu€of€interest€for€purposes€of€the€statute€and€that€Griffin€was,€therefore,€entitled€"to€theÏvalue€of€his€1/3€interest€in€the€partnership€as€of€March€13,€1984€plus€the€profits€attributable€to€theÍpresence€of€his€interest€in€the€partnership€from€the€date€of€his€election€until€paid€the€value€of€hisÏinterest."€€Post„dissolution€distributions€were€to€be€deducted€from€this€amount.€€The€court€orderedÏthe€matter€referred€to€a€special€master€for€an€accounting€once€the€"parameters"€to€govern€such€wereÏdetermined.ÌÌà àThe€established€parameters€included€the€parties'€agreement€that€the€value€of€theÏbusiness€on€the€date€of€dissolution€was€$2,333,769,€with€Griffin's€one„third€share€beingÏ$777,923.€€The€court€treated€Griffin's€interest€in€the€partnership€as€"terminated"€as€of€March€13,Ï1984€and€identified€the€continuing€business€as€a€"sole€proprietorship."€€The€court€"further€ruled"Ïthat€Griffin€had€elected€to€receive€a€share€of€the€"profits€or€losses"€of€the€business,€in€lieu€ofÏinterest,€but€acknowledged€Griffin's€exception€thereto.ÌÌà àAfter€appointment,€the€Special€Master€issued€various€preliminary€reports€beforeÏissuing€a€"Final€Report"€and€"Report€on€Rehearing,"€resulting€in€objections€by€both€parties.€€TheÏMaster's€final€accounting€encompassed€the€years€1984€to€1990€and€disallowed,€as€an€expense,€anyÏcompensation€to€Shepherd€in€continuing€the€business€since€dissolution;€reduced€Shepherd'sÏstarting€capital€account€balance€by€$92,009;€allocated€to€Griffin€his€respective€share€of€the€profitsÏearned€since€dissolution,€but€not€losses;€and€did€not€charge,€as€distributions€to€Griffin,€€paymentsÏmade€by€the€bankruptcy€trustee€with€partnership€assets.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€adopted€the€Master's€final€accounting,€with€only€minor€mathematicalÏrevisions,€by€judgment€entered€December€9,€1993.€€The€end€result€was€an€ending€capital€accountÏbalance€of€$526,560.86€for€Griffin€and€$120,279.69€for€Shepherd.€€Shepherd's€motion€to€alter€orÏamend€the€judgment€was€denied.ÌÌà àShepherd€raises€the€following€issues€on€appeal:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à1.€€Whether€the€trial€court€and€special€master€erred€inÏreducing€Shepherd's€starting€account€balance.ÌÌà8 àà à2.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€allowing€ShepherdÏcompensation€for€her€services€to€the€continued€business.ÌÌà8 àà à3.€€Whether€the€trial€court€and€special€master€erred€in€notÏallocating€payments€of€Griffin's€debts€by€the€bankruptcy€trustee€asÏdistributions€to€Griffin.ÌÌà8 àà à4.€€Whether€the€trial€court€and€special€master€erred€in€notÏcharging€Griffin€proportionately€with€business€losses.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àGriffin€presents€three€additional€issues:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à1.€€The€trial€court€erred€in€concluding€that€[Griffin]Ïconsented€to€a€continuation€of€the€business€by€[Shepherd]€and€madeÏan€election€to€take€profits.ÌÌà8 àà à2.€€The€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€address€[Griffin's]Ïinterest€in€the€partnership€assets€for€years€1991€to€date€ofÏdistribution.ÌÌà8 àà à3.€€The€trial€court€erred€in€concluding€that€the€partnershipÏassets€became€those€of€[Shepherd]€upon€dissolution€of€theÏpartnership.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àWe€begin€our€review€with€a€determination€of€Griffin's€first€issue€as€it€affects€theÏresolution€of€others€raised.€€Central€to€our€analysis€are€the€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€61„1„141.€€ThisÏstatute€establishes€the€rights€of€a€withdrawing€partner,€in€the€event€the€business€is€continued€underÏT.C.A.€ðð€61„1„137(b)(2)€or€certain€specified€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€61„1„140,€to€receive€the€valueÏof€his€partnership€interest€on€the€date€of€dissolution€with€either€interest€thereon€or€"the€profitsÏattributable€to€the€use€of€his€right€in€the€property€of€the€dissolved€partnership."€€For€our€purposes,Ïthis€means€that€the€business€may€be€continued,€if€Griffin€assigns€his€rights€in€the€partnershipÏproperty€to€Shepherd€or€consents€to€the€business'€continued€operation€although€no€actualÏassignment€is€made.€€òòò òSeeóóó ó€T.C.A.€ðð€61„1„140(a)(b)€and€(c);€òòò òYoung€v.€Cooperóóó ó,€203€S.W.2dÍ376€(Tenn.€App.€1947).× ƒ% ××  ×€€Otherwise,€a€withdrawing€partner,€who€has€not€wrongfully€dissolvedÏthe€partnership,€"has€the€right€to€wind€up€the€partnership€affairs;€.€.€.€."€€T.C.A.€ðð€61„1„136.ÌÌà àAs€held€in€òòò òLange€v.€Bartlettóóó ó,€360€N.W.2d€702€(Wis.€Ct.€App.€1984):ÌÌÓÓà8 àIt€is€at€.€.€.€the€point€of€dissolution,€that€the€retiring€partner€makes€anÏelection.€€He€can€either€force€the€business€to€"wind„up"€and€take€hisÏpart€of€the€proceeds,€sharing€in€profits€and€losses€after€dissolution,Ïor€he€can€permit€the€business€to€continue€and€claim€as€a€creditor€theÏvalue€of€his€interest€at€dissolution.€.€.€.€€Distinguishing€in€the€firstÏinstance€whether€a€wind„up€or€a€continuation€is€at€hand€is€criticalÏsimply€because€the€settlement€of€the€former€partner's€account€differsÏdepending€on€whether€it€is€a€wind„up€or€a€continuation.ÌÌÌÓÓòòò òLangeóóó ó,€360€N.W.2d€at€704€(citations€omitted).ÌÌà àThe€record€is€clear€that€Griffin€has€not€expressly€assigned€his€rights€in€theÏpartnership€property.€€Consequently,€we€must€discern€whether€Griffin€nonetheless€consented€to€aÏcontinuation€of€the€business€as€found€by€the€trial€court.€€Griffin's€argument€to€the€contrary€isÏprimarily€based€upon€this€Court's€language€in€òòò òShepherdóóó ó€when€stating:ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€record€suggests€repeatedly,€including€Section€18€of€theÏagreement,€that€the€underlying€and€primary€purpose€[of€theÏpartnership]€was€facilitation€of€property€distribution€in€divorce.€ÏThat€being€the€case,€we€fail€to€find€in€the€record€what€"business"ÏWife€intended€to€continue€which€might€merit€granting€her€individualÏownership€of€partnership€property€when€Husband€filed€bankruptcy.ÌÌà8 àà àEven€if€a€business€capable€of€continuing€were€clearly€evidentÏin€the€record,€it€is€not€clear€that€either€party€intended€that€business€to€Ïcontinue€after€dissolution.€€The€stipulated€order€states€thatÏdissolution€occurred€on€March€13,€1984.€€Although€as€noted€earlier,Ïit€might€be€inferred€that€the€dissolution€was€a€result€of€Husband'sÏbankruptcy€the€order€does€not€so€state.€€The€dissolution€could€asÏwell€have€been€by€consent€of€the€parties,€an€option€provided€for€inÍthe€agreement.€€If€so,€the€inference€would€be€that€the€"business"€wasÏto€cease,€and€the€property€distributed€to€the€partners.ÌÌà8 àà àAdditionally,€of€the€three€stated€purposes€only€one€clearlyÏmight€constitute€a€continuing€business€„„€exploitation€of€the€talentsÏof€the€Husband€and€others.€€It€would€be€difficult€for€Wife€toÏcontinue€such€a€business€if€the€Husband€did€not€so€desire.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òShepherdóóó ó,€776€S.W.2d€at€121.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court,€upon€remand,€found€that€the€partnership€was€dissolved€whenÏGriffin€filed€bankruptcy€on€March€13,€1984,€as€so€stipulated€by€the€parties.€€The€court€furtherÏfound€that€although€Griffin€had€not€wrongfully€dissolved€the€partnership,€precluding€his€rightsÏunder€ðð€61„1„136,€he€had€impliedly€consented€to€the€continuation€of€the€business€by€actingÏ"inconsistent€with€a€desire€to€wind€up€and€liquidate€€.€.€.€"€when:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à(a)€€.€.€.€agreeing€in€October€1986€to€place€a€1984€value€onÏthe€partnership€assets.ÌÌà8 àà à(b)€€.€.€.€dismissing€his€request€for€a€receiver€to€wind„up€theÏpartnership€and€liquidate€its€assets€and€failing€to€request€a€wind„upÏand€liquidation€in€the€Orders€entered€in€October€1986;ÌÌà8 àà à(c)€€.€.€.€consenting€to€allow€Shepherd€to€treat€him€as€aÏcreditor€in€a€buy„out€pursuant€to€TCA€Section€61„1„141€as€late€asÏMay€14,€1987€as€opposed€to€a€partner€in€a€wind„up€and€liquidationÏpursuant€to€TCA€Section€61„1„136€and€Section€61„1„137(a).ÌÌà8 àà à(d)€€.€.€.€demanding€1/3€of€the€profits€of€the€dissolvedÏpartnership€.€.€.€which€can€only€apply€to€a€situation€in€which€there€isÏa€continuation€of€partnership€"business"€and€a€buy„out€of€theÏpartner's€interest€as€opposed€to€a€wind„up€and€liquidation€of€theÏpartnership€assets;ÌÌà8 àà à(e)€€.€.€.€allowing€Shepherd,€without€objection,€to€continueÏto€run€the€business€of€the€former€partnership€after€its€dissolution.€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àWith€the€exception€of€finding€(d),€Griffin€does€not€refute€these€actions€on€his€part.€ÏWe,€therefore,€conclude€that€Griffin€has€waived€his€rights€under€T.C.A.€ðð€61„1„136€to€require€aÍ"winding€up"€of€the€business× ƒ& ××  ×€and€has€impliedly€consented€to€its€continuation.× ƒ' ××  ×ÌÌà àWe€now€consider€the€related€issue€of€whether€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€itsÏdetermination€that€Griffin€elected€profits€in€lieu€of€interest€for€purposes€of€the€statute.× ƒ( ××  ×€€We€initiallyÏnote€that€we€do€not€find€Griffin's€consent€to€the€continuation€of€the€business€to€necessarily€equateÏto€an€election€of€profits.€€The€language€employed€by€the€court€in€òòò òLange€v.€Bartlettóóó ó,€meritsÏrepeating:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àContinuation€.€.€.€effects€a€totally€different€settlement€of€theÏformer€partner's€account.€€The€outgoing€partner€can€agree,€at€theÏtime€of€dissolution,€that€the€business€will€be€continued.€€If€theÏoutgoing€partner€elects€to€allow€the€business€to€continue,€then€thatÏpartner€has€a€second€election€„„€to€receive€either€interest€or€profitsÏfrom€the€date€of€dissolution€„„€in€addition€to€the€value€of€his€or€herÏinterest€in€the€partnership€.€.€.€.€€This€"second€election"€can€be€madeÏonly€by€the€former€partner;€it€cannot€be€made€by€either€theÏcontinuing€partner€or€the€trial€court€.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àThis€election€.€.€.€need€not€be€made€until€there€has€been€aÏfinal€accounting€of€the€partnership.€€The€right€of€election€which€theÏretiring€partner€has€is€one€which€he€should€be€permitted€to€exerciseÏ"after€an€accounting€shall€have€been€taken€of€the€earningsÏsubsequent€to€dissolution.€€Otherwise,€the€right€of€election€would€beÏan€illusory€one."ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òLangeóóó ó,€360€N.W.2d€at€704„05€(citations€omitted).€€In€accord€is€òòò òTimmermann€v.ÏTimmermannóóó ó,€538€P.2d€1254,€1261€n.€4€(Ore.€1975),€holding€that€the€"second€election"€needÏnot€be€made€"until€an€accounting€has€disclosed€the€comparative€figures€and€[the€withdrawingÍpartner]€sees€which€is€more€favorable€to€him,"€and€òòò òNichols€v.€Elkinsóóó ó,€408€P.2d€34,€40€(Ariz.ÏCt.€App.€1965),€wherein€the€Arizona€Court€of€Appeals€likewise€determined€that€the€outgoingÏpartner€is€not€required€to€make€his€election€until€the€extent€of€the€profits€earned€during€the€post„dissolution€period€is€known.ÌÌà àShepherd€cites€no€opposing€authority€to€Griffin's€request€that€he€be€allowed€toÏmake€an€informed€choice€between€interest€or€profits€subsequent€to€an€accounting€revealing€bothÏfigures.€€She€does€refer€to€opposing€counsel's€statement,€as€did€the€trial€court,€that€Griffin€did€notÏcare€whether€he€was€considered€a€partner€in€the€wind€up€of€the€partnership€or€a€creditor€in€a€buy„out.€€We€do€not€find€this€statement€persuasive,€however,€as€it€merely€implies€an€acquiescence€inÏthe€continuation€of€the€business.€€The€mere€fact€that€the€partnership€business€continues€does€notÏeliminate€or€foreclose€Griffin's€election€under€the€statute.ÌÌà àWe€are€inclined€to€agree€with€the€sound€reasoning€of€the€foregoing€authorities€andÏhold€that€a€withdrawing€partner€is€not€obligated€to€make€his€election€under€ðð€61„1„141€until€heÏpossesses€sufficient€information€to€make€an€informed€decision.€€This€necessarily€entails€anÏaccounting€to€reveal€the€extent€of€the€profits€earned€by€the€continuing€business€since€dissolution.€ÏThe€record€shows€that€the€Master's€accounting€sets€forth€in€detail€Griffin's€respective€share€of€theÏprofits€for€the€post„dissolution€period€under€consideration.€€Nothing€has€been€revealed€to€thisÏCourt's€satisfaction€indicating€that€Griffin€has€previously€exercised€his€option€under€the€statute.× ƒ) ××  ×€ÏThus,€on€remand,€Griffin€is€to€elect€either€interest€or€his€respective€share€of€the€profits€sinceÏdissolution.ÌÌà àThis€leads€to€discussion€of€whether€Griffin€is€to€be€charged€with€a€proportionateÏshare€of€the€business'€losses,€if€an€election€of€profits€is€made.€€T.C.A.€ðð€61„1„141,€in€its€entirety,Ïprovides:ÌÌÓÓà8 àò òRights€of€retiring€or€deceased€partner€on€continuation€ofÏbusiness.€ó ó„„€When€any€partner€retires€or€dies,€and€the€business€isÏcontinued€under€any€of€the€conditions€set€forth€in€ðð€61„1„140(a),Ï(b),€(c),€(e)€or€(f)€or€ðð€61„1„137(b)(2),€without€any€settlement€ofÏaccounts€as€between€him€or€his€estate€and€the€person€or€partnershipÏcontinuing€the€business€unless€otherwise€agreed,€he€or€his€legalÏrepresentative€as€against€such€persons€or€partnership€may€have€theÏvalue€of€his€interest€at€the€date€of€dissolution€ascertained,€and€shallÏreceive€as€any€ordinary€creditor€an€amount€equal€to€the€value€of€hisÏinterest€in€the€dissolved€partnership€with€interest,€or€at€his€option€orÏat€the€option€of€his€legal€representative€in€lieu€of€interest,€the€profitsÏattributable€to€the€use€of€his€right€in€the€property€of€the€dissolvedÏpartnership;€provided,€that€the€creditors€of€the€dissolved€partnershipÏas€against€the€separate€creditors,€or€the€representative,€or€the€retiredÏpartner,€shall€have€priority€on€any€claim€arising€under€this€section,Ïas€provided€by€ðð€61„1„140(h).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àPremised€upon€the€trial€court's€decision€that€Griffin€had€elected€profits,€the€MasterÏconcluded€that€ðð€61„1„141€does€not€require€Griffin€to€share€proportionately€in€the€losses€during€theÏpost„dissolution€period,€reasoning€that€"the€statute€only€refers€to€profits"€and€"treats€theÏwithdrawing€partner€'as€an€ordinary€creditor.'€"€€The€Master€further€explained:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[T]he€Master€interprets€[T.C.A.€ðð€61„1„141]€to€equate€profits€withÏinterest€except€that€the€choice€made€by€the€withdrawing€partnerÏaffects€only€the€rate€of€return€he€or€she€is€to€receive.€€Since€theÏinterest€an€ordinary€creditor€would€receive€would€be€unaffected€byÏthe€existence€of€losses,€it€is€the€Master's€opinion€that€the€profits€aÏwithdrawing€partner€receives€under€the€statute€should€similarly€beÏunaffected€by€the€existence€of€losses,€.€.€.€.€€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àShepherd€argues€that€the€trial€court's€concurrence€in€the€Master's€finding€as€to€thisÏissue€is€error€because€(1)€the€parties€"otherwise€agreed"€that€Griffin€would€share€proportionately€inÏboth€profits€and€losses€and€(2)€the€trial€court€recognized€their€agreement€in€its€"Order€RegardingÏAccounting€Parameters"€and€additionally€held€that€a€proportionate€share€of€the€losses€would€beÍcharged€to€Griffin€in€further€rulings€prior€to€the€Master's€final€report.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court,€in€its€final€judgment,€expressly€found€no€"clear€agreement"€betweenÏthe€parties€"address[ing]€the€specific€issue€of€whether€losses€would€.€.€.€be€considered."€€We€find€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€to€support€this€finding.€€As€to€the€latter€argument,€we€point€out€thatÏinterim€rulings€by€the€trial€court€are€subject€to€modification€at€any€time€prior€to€entry€of€a€finalÏjudgment.€€Clearly,€the€issue€before€us€is€one€of€law€involving€interpretation€of€the€statute.€€Thus,Ïthe€trial€court's€conclusions€in€respect€thereto€are€subject€to€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€review€without€aÏpresumption€of€correctness.€€òòò òSee,€e.g.,€Presley€v.€Bennettóóó ó,€860€S.W.2d€857,€859€(Tenn.Ï1993).ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€Shepherd€cites€no€case€law€interpreting€the€statute€to€require€an€outgoingÏpartner€electing€to€receive€profits€to€share€proportionately€in€the€losses€of€the€continuing€businessÏas€well.€€In€òòò òLangeóóó ó,€360€N.W.2d€at€704,€the€court€clearly€distinguished€between€the€profitsÏgarnered€by€an€outgoing€partner€from€a€continuation€of€the€business€and€those€incident€to€a€windÏup€and€liquidation€when€stating:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[I]n€a€wind€up,€.€.€.€the€outgoing€partner€shares€in€both€profits€andÏlosses€until€termination€.€.€.€.€€The€former€partner,€therefore,€doesÏnot€take€as€a€creditor€.€.€.€.€€Termination€is€the€point€in€time€when€allÏof€the€partnership€affairs€are€wound€up€.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€The€profits€garnered€from€continuation€are€differentÏfrom€the€profits€at€wind„up€simply€because,€in€a€continuation,€theÏoutgoing€partner€is€not€responsible€for€the€debts€of€the€continuingÏpartnership.€€The€outgoing€partner€.€.€.€takes€as€a€creditor.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òIdóóó ó.€(citations€omitted).€€òòò òTimmermannóóó ó,€likewise,€concludes€that€the€"second€election"€shields€theÏoutgoing€partner€from€losses,€"at€least€vis„a„vis€the€continuing€partners."€€òòò òTimmermannóóó ó,€538ÏP.2d€at€1261.ÌÌà àGriffin€cites€òòò òM.€&€C.€Creditors€Corp.€v.€Prattóóó ó,€17€N.Y.S.2d€240€(1938)Ïwhich€interpreted€an€almost€identically€worded€statute€to€our€own€to€conclude:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[W]here€the€surviving€partners€of€a€business€continue€to€use€theÏinterest€of€a€deceased€partner€in€the€conduct€of€the€firm's€affairs,Ïthey€must€account€to€the€representatives€of€the€decedent,€not€only€forÏthe€value€of€his€share€.€.€.€but€also€for€profits€earned€which€may€beÏattributed€to€that€value.€€On€the€other€hand,€all€losses€are€required€toÏbe€borne€entirely€by€the€surviving€partners.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òPrattóóó ó,€17€N.Y.S.2d€at€253.€€òòò òPrattóóó ó€reasoned€that€if€partners€continuing€in€the€business€"enter€intoÏnew€transactions€with€the€partnership€funds,€they€do€so€at€their€peril€.€.€.€.€€If€no€profits€are€made,Ïor€even€if€a€loss€is€incurred,€they€must€be€charged€with€interest€on€the€funds€they€use,€and€theÏwhole€loss€will€be€theirs."€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€255€(quoting€òòò òBrown's€Appealóóó ó€89€Pa.€139,€147).ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€and€Master€did€not€err€in€their€interpretation€of€theÏstatute.€€T.C.A.€ðð€61„1„141€unequivocally€treats€a€retiring€partner€as€"any€ordinary€creditor"€to€theÏextent€of€his€remaining€investment€in€the€business.€€As€a€creditor,€he€is€not€obligated€to€shareÏdirectly€in€the€business'€losses.€€ÌÌà àWe€summarize€as€follows:€€Upon€dissolution,€a€withdrawing€partner€who€has€notÏwrongfully€dissolved€the€partnership€may€require€a€winding€up€of€the€partnership€affairs,€T.C.A.€ððÏ61„1„136,€and€share€proportionately€in€both€profits€and€losses€until€termination,€when€allÏpartnership€affairs€are€settled.€€In€this€event,€the€respective€interests€of€the€partners€in€theÏpartnership,€including€profits€and€losses,€do€not€change€until€final€settlement€(termination).€€òòò òSeeÏShepherd€v.€Griffinóóó ó,€776€S.W.2d€at€122.€€If,€on€the€other€hand,€the€business€continues€as€setÏforth€in€T.C.A.€ðð€61„1„141,€and€there€is€no€settlement€of€accounts€as€between€the€retiring€andÏcontinuing€partners,€the€outgoing€partner€becomes€a€creditor€of€the€former€partnership€to€the€extentÏof€his€investment€and€is€entitled€to€the€value€of€his€interest€in€the€partnership€on€the€date€ofÏdissolution€with€interest,€or€in€lieu€thereof,€the€profits€attributable€to€the€use€of€his€right€in€theÍproperty€of€the€dissolved€partnership.€€So€long€as€a€retiring€partner's€share€of€the€assets€remain€inÏthe€continuing€business€and€are€being€utilized€by€the€continuing€partner€to€effectuate€a€profit,€theÏoutgoing€partner€is€entitled€to€those€profits€attributable€to€his€remaining€share,€undiminished€by€anyÏlosses.€€Dissolution€of€the€partnership€and€continuation€of€the€business,€however,€does€not€affectÏthe€status€of€the€assets.€€The€assets€remain€partnership€assets€until€a€final€settlement€of€accountsÏbetween€the€former€partners.€€€òòò òSee,€e.g.,€€Jade,€Inc.€v.€Bendewaldóóó ó,€468€N.W.2d€138,€142Ï(S.D.€1991).€€òòò òSee€also€Hilgendorf€v.€Densonóóó ó,€341€So.2d€549,€551€(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.€App.Ï1977)€(remaining€partner€continuing€partnership€business€with€"partnership"€assets€is€required€toÏaccount€to€withdrawing€partner).ÌÌà àWe€next€address€the€trial€court's€alleged€error€in€concurring€with€the€Special€MasterÏto€reduce€Wife's€starting€account€balance€by€$92,009.€€Of€the€$2,333,769€total€value€placed€on€theÏpartnership€assets€as€of€March€13,€1984,€the€parties€agreed€that€Griffin's€share€was€$777,923€andÏShepherd's,€$1,555,846.€€The€Master€chose€to€deduct€the€forgoing€amount,€reasoning€that€suchÏrepresented€certain€tangible€personalty€in€the€form€of€"automobiles,€furniture€and€jewelry"€retainedÏby€Shepherd,€but€not€included€in€the€prior€accounting× ƒ, ××  ×€to€reduce€her€capital€account€valuation.€€TheÏMaster€found€the€converse€true€as€to€the€tangible€personalty€retained€by€Griffin€and€considered€thisÏ"inconsistent€treatment"€erroneous.€€The€Master€further€determined€that€the€items€retained€were€notÏused€in€furtherance€of€the€business.€€Thus,€the€value€of€Shepherd's€capital€account€as€of€the€date€ofÏdissolution€was€reduced€accordingly.€ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€Shepherd€contends€that€the€Master's€decision€in€this€regard€exceeded€theÏscope€of€his€reference€as€the€beginning€capital€account€balances€were€stipulated€to€by€the€partiesÏand€set€forth€in€a€prior€order€of€the€trial€court.€€Shepherd€further€contends€that€the€total€value€of€theÏpartnership€assets€were€not€distributed€because€the€beginning€balances€as€found€by€the€Master€totalÍless€than€the€agreed€total€value€established€by€the€parties.€€Finally,€Shepherd€argues€that€herÏretention€of€these€particular€assets€after€dissolution€is€consistent€with€her€retention€of€all€otherÏassets€of€the€former€partnership€in€order€to€continue€the€business€and€they,€therefore,€should€not€beÏtreated€differently€for€purposes€of€the€accounting.ÌÌà àOur€review€is€in€accordance€with€the€concurrent€finding€rule€which€rendersÏconcurrent€findings€by€the€master€and€trial€court€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€(1)€the€issue€shouldÏnot€have€been€referred€to€the€master;€(2)€the€findings€are€based€on€an€error€of€law;€(3)€the€findingsÏinvolve€a€question€of€law€or€a€mixed€question€of€law€and€fact;€or€(4)€the€findings€are€not€supportedÏby€substantial€and€material€evidence.€€òòò òSee€In€re€Estate€of€Wallace,€ó óóó829€S.W.2d€696,€700Ï(Tenn.€App.€1992);€òòò òCrouch€v.€Crouchóóó ó,€385€S.W.2d€288,€291€(Tenn.€App.€1964).€€At€firstÏglance,€it€appears€that€the€Master€and€trial€court€chose€to€disregard€the€prior€stipulation€of€theÏparties€as€to€the€agreed€upon€starting€balances.€€On€closer€examination,€however,€we€are€inclined€toÏagree€with€Griffin€that€any€error€in€this€respect€is€harmless.€€We€first€point€out€that€Shepherd,€inÏargument,€does€not€dispute€her€retention€of€these€personal€items€or€their€value.€€Furthermore,€theÏrecord€indicates€that€the€value€of€these€items€was€considered€when€first€determining€the€value€ofÏtotal€partnership€assets.€€The€record€shows€that€the€Master,€in€reconciling€the€capital€accounts,Ïconsidered€"actual€distributions"€that€were€periodically€made€to€the€parties€after€dissolution€toÏreduce€each€party's€capital€account€and€arrive€at€an€"ending€capital€account€balance."€€Indeed,€theÏMaster€could€have€begun€his€calculations€with€the€agreed€balance€as€to€Shepherd€($1,555,846)€andÏthen€deducted€the€$92,009€as€an€actual€distribution.€€He€chose,€however,€to€reduce€Shepherd'sÏstarting€capital€account€balance€by€this€amount.€€The€end€result€is€the€same.€€In€short,€the€$92,009Ïreduction€represents€an€"actual€distribution"€to€Shepherd,€albeit€not€designated€as€such,€and€wasÏproper€within€the€confines€of€the€accounting€method€utilized€by€the€Master.€€We€find€this€issueÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà àShepherd's€next€issue€concerns€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€disallowing€her€toÍdeduct€as€a€proper€business€expense€compensation€for€her€services€in€continuing€the€business.€ÏThe€trial€court's€amended€findings,€entered€in€May€1991,€indicate€that€Shepherd's€participation€inÏthe€business€since€dissolution,€included€"actively€manag[ing]"€the€California€apartment€complex,ÏSouthampton.€€In€disallowing€the€deduction,€the€Master€reasoned€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[B]ased€on€the€testimony€of€Shepherd€and€her€father,€CharlesÏCollins,€that€the€bulk€of€the€work€in€collecting€royalties€andÏmanaging€Southampton€was€performed€by€Collins€and€a€residentÏmanager.€.€.€.€Collins€and€the€resident€manager€were€bothÏcompensated€for€their€services€[Collins€approximately€$18,000€perÏyear,€the€resident€manager€approximately€$3,000€per€year].€€ItÏseems€inappropriate€to€add€another€layer€of€compensation€for€theÏsupervisory€services€claimed€by€Shepherd.€.€.€.€€Shepherd'sÏservices€were€redundant€of€those€performed€by€others€who€wereÏcompensated€therefor.€€The€nature€of€the€work€to€be€performed€withÏrespect€to€assets€which€are€essentially€passive€in€nature€and€theÏamount€of€compensation€already€paid€in€relation€to€the€incomeÏgenerated€from€the€activity€does€not€justify€additional€compensationÏexpense.€.€.€.€€It€seems€that€Shepherd€made€a€conscious€decision€toÏemploy€her€father€in€the€business€for€reasons€that€were€not€entirelyÏbusiness€related;€accordingly,€the€Master€feels€that€additionalÏcompensation,€even€if€legally€allowable,€would€not€be€justified€inÏthis€case.ÌÌÌÌÓÓThe€final€judgment€concurs€in€the€Master's€findings.ÌÌà àShepherd€insists€that€her€managerial€services€enable€the€business€to€earn€additionalÏprofits€in€which€Griffin€will€benefit€and€for€which€he€would€otherwise€be€required€to€pay.€€SheÏattempts€to€circumvent€the€concurrent€finding€rule€by€contending€that€her€right€to€compensation€isÏone€of€law€and/or€the€concurrent€findings€are€not€supported€by€substantial€and€material€evidence.€ÏShe€relies€in€part€on€the€language€of€ðð€61„1„141€to€argue€that€Griffin€clearly€is€€not€entitled€to€shareÏin€those€profits€directly€attributable€to€her€services€in€continuing€the€business,€but€only€thoseÏ"profits€attributable€to€the€use€of€his€right€in€the€property€of€the€dissolved€partnership."€€As€furtherÏauthority,€Shepherd€cites€òòò òBracht€v.€Connellóóó ó,€170€A.€297€(Pa.€1933),€òòò òLange€v.€Bartlettóóó ó,€360ÏN.W.2d€at€70,€and€òòò òTimmermannóóó ó,€538€P.2d€at€1254.€€òòò òBrachtóóó ó€allowed€"special€compensation€forÏservices€rendered"€to€partners€continuing€the€partnership€business€after€dissolution.€òòò òBrachtóóó ó,€170ÍA.€at€300.€€òòò òBrachtóóó ó€reasoned:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[T]he€former€partner€is€not€merely€winding€up€the€affairs€of€theÏpartnership,€receiving€money€due,€paying€firm€debts€and€dividingÏthe€surplus,€for€the€purposes€of€liquidation,€but€is€expending€time,Ïskill€labor€in€carrying€on€the€business€that€additional€profits€may€beÏearned€for€the€former€partnership's€benefit.€€In€such€case,€thisÏformer€partner€stands€in€the€position€of€stranger€who€has€beenÏemployed€to€perform€such€services.€€Appellants€could€haveÏemployed€managers€and€no€question€could€be€raised€as€to€thisÏexpense.€€They€were€entitled€to€€be€paid€for€the€services€theyÏperformed€.€.€.€€the€court€below€must€determine€what€is€the€fairÏvalue€of€such€services€by€a€consideration€of€the€nature€of€the€work,Ïthe€time€spent,€and€the€skill€used.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òIdóóó ó.€€ÌÌà àòòò òLangeóóó ó€acknowledged€a€discord€among€the€jurisdictions€regarding€the€issue€ofÏcompensation€to€continuing€partners€in€the€absence€of€an€express€agreement,× ƒ. ××  ×€but€believed€theÏbetter€reasoned€view€is€to€allow€compensation€to€a€partner€who€"contributes€substantial€labor€andÏmanagement€services"€to€the€continuation€of€the€partnership€business€after€dissolution.€€òòò òLangeóóó ó,Ï360€N.W.2d€at€706.€€The€òòò òTimmermannóóó ó€decision€is€in€accord.ÌÌà àThe€record€indicates€that€the€trial€court€considered€relevant,€T.C.A.€ðð€61„1„117(6),Ïholding€that€"[n]o€partner€is€entitled€to€remuneration€for€acting€in€the€partnership€business,€exceptÏthat€a€surviving€partner€is€entitled€to€reasonable€compensation€for€his€service€in€winding€up€theÏpartnership€affairs;€.€.€.€."€€We€are€inclined€to€agree€with€Shepherd€that€the€foregoing€isÏinapplicable€to€the€instant€situation€where€the€partnership€business€is€continued€after€dissolution.€ÏWe€further€do€not€find€ourselves€in€disagreement€with€the€principles€espoused€by€the€foregoingÏauthorities€on€which€Shepherd€relies.€€We€are€not€persuaded,€however,€that€their€application€isÏwarranted€under€these€circumstances,€which€we€find€factually€distinguishable.€€The€MasterÍbelieved€an€imputed€salary€to€Shepherd€inappropriate€because€she€had€employed€others€to€manageÏthe€"bulk"€of€the€business€who€were€compensated€from€partnership€assets.€€The€Master€foundÏShepherd's€services€redundant€of€those€she€had€employed.€€Shepherd€testified€that€she€hadÏemployed€her€father€in€the€operation€of€the€business€for€which€he€was€compensated.€€She€statedÏthat€in€addition€to€providing€financial€and€"tax€advice,"€he€resided€at€the€California€apartmentÏcomplex€for€"as€long€as€six€months€at€a€time."€€Shepherd€also€conceded€employing€a€"full€time"Ïresident€manager€to€manage€the€complex.€€During€the€times€when€Shepherd€resided€at€the€complex,Ïshe€and€her€father€"act[ed]€right€alongside€the€managers."€€We€find€substantial€and€materialÏevidence€in€the€record€to€support€the€concurrent€finding€that€additional€compensation€expense€is€notÏwarranted.€€None€of€the€cases€cited€above€involve€the€situation€we€have€here:€€the€employment€ofÏthird€parties€to€manage€the€continuing€business€who€have€been€compensated€from€its€assets.ÌÌà àWe€now€address€the€trial€court's€alleged€error€in€failing€to€allocate€payments€madeÏby€the€bankruptcy€trustee€with€partnership€assets€as€distributions€to€Griffin.€€The€bankruptcyÏtrustee€testified€that€at€the€time€of€the€bankruptcy,€Griffin's€"undisputed€asset"€was€an€interest€inÏthe€partnership.€€The€Master€found€that€the€trustee's€services€"in€collecting€assets€for€the€businessÏand€in€settling€claims€against€the€[p]artnership's€assets€benefited€both€Shepherd€and€Griffin."€€ToÏthis€end,€the€Master€treated€as€"legitimate€partnership€expense[s]"€most€of€the€legal€fees€incurred€inÏsettling€and€preserving€partnership€assets€in€connection€with€the€bankruptcy.ÌÌ€à àIt€is€Shepherd's€contention€that€Griffin€is€judicially€estopped€from€denying€that€theÏdebts€listed€in€his€bankruptcy€petition€were€his€own€personal€debts€and€consequently,€the€businessÏassets€utilized€to€pay€those€debts€must€properly€be€treated€as€distributions€to€him€in€the€accounting.ÏThe€bankruptcy€petition€establishes,€on€its€face,€that€the€debtor€in€bankruptcy€was€Griffin,Ïindividually,€and€not€the€partnership.€€In€listing€"all€liabilities€of€the€debtor,"€Griffin€listed€creditorsÏsecured€by€partnership€property€and€stated€that€"[d]ebtor€has€an€undivided€1/3€interest€in€the€.€.€.Ïsecurity€and€is€jointly€liable€on€each€claim.€€The€[secured]€properties€are€owned€by€GriffinÍEnterprises."€€In€listing€"all€property€of€the€debtor,"€Griffin€valued€the€various€assets€of€theÏpartnership€and€stated€that€his€interest€in€such€was€one„third.ÌÌà àGriffin€argues€that€the€funds€collected€by€the€bankruptcy€trustee€were€not€limited€toÏhis€one„third€interest€€and€were€disbursed€in€satisfaction€of€partnership€debt.€€Conversely,ÏShepherd€asserts€that€the€partnership€assets€turned€over€on€demand€to€the€trustee€were€fromÏGriffin's€dissolution€share€only.€€The€trustee€testified€that€"[he]€satisfied€all€of€the€obligations€[asÏto]€all€the€creditors€of€[Griffin]€and€Griffin€Enterprises."ÌÌà àPartnership€property€cannot€be€used€in€satisfaction€of€debts€of€an€individual€partner.€Ïòòò òBeaty€v.€United€Statesóóó ó,€937€F.2d€288,€290„91€(6th€Cir.€1991).€€Also,€as€a€general€rule,€whenÏa€partner€files€bankruptcy,€the€partner's€estate€obtains€whatever€interest€the€partner€had€in€theÏpartnership.€€òòò òIn€re€Fulton,óóó ó€43€B.R.€273,€276€(Bankr.€M.D.€Tenn.€1984).€€In€this€particularÏcase,€however,€it€appears€that€the€bankruptcy€trustee€collected€partnership€property,€not€limited€byÏGriffin's€dissolution€share,× ƒ/ ××  ×€to€satisfy€partnership€debt,€which€indeed€benefited€both€Shepherd€andÏGriffin.€€"Where€one€partner€is€adjudged€bankrupt,€it€is€the€remaining€partner's€duty€to€payÏ[partnership]€creditors."€€68€C.J.S.€òòò òPartnershipóóó ó€ðð€359€(1950).€€We€find€no€error€by€the€trialÏcourt€in€this€regard.€ÌÌà àThe€last€issue€concerns€whether,€on€remand,€the€Master's€accounting€shouldÏcontinue€to€include€the€year€1991€to€the€time€of€final€distribution.€€Shepherd€contends€that€furtherÏaccounting€beyond€the€year€1990€cannot€proceed€in€the€trial€court€due€to€the€fact€that€she€filed€herÏown€Chapter€11€bankruptcy€on€April€8,€1994.€€Shepherd€fails€to€cite€any€legal€authority€supportingÏher€position.€€We,€therefore,€conclude€that€Griffin€is€entitled€to€a€share€of€the€profits€or€interest€(onÍthe€value€of€his€interest€at€the€date€of€dissolution)€until€he€is€actually€paid€the€value€of€his€interest€inÏthe€dissolved€partnership.€€òòò òSee€Schoen€v.€J.€C.€Bradford€&€Co.óóó ó,€667€S.W.2d€97,€101Ï(Tenn.€App.€1984).€€Accordingly,€on€remand,€further€accounting€is€necessary€to€determineÏGriffin's€share€of€profits€or€interest€until€he€receives€payment€of€his€partnership€interest.ÌÌà àIt€results€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed€to€the€extent€that€it€holds€thatÏGriffin€elected€profits€in€lieu€of€interest€for€purposes€of€T.C.A.€ðð€61„1„141.€€The€judgment,€in€allÏother€respects,€is€hereby€affirmed.€€We€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€with€the€followingÏinstructions:€€The€trial€court€is€to€conduct€a€further€accounting,€beginning€with€the€year€1991€untilÏdistribution.€€The€method€of€accounting€is€as€before,€with€no€deduction€made€for€compensation€toÏShepherd€for€her€services€in€continuing€the€business.€€The€accounting€is€to€include€Griffin'sÏproportionate€share€of€the€profits€from€1991€forward€and€Griffin,€thereafter,€must€elect€eitherÏprofits€or€interest€in€accordance€with€the€statute.€€Griffin€is€not€to€share€proportionately€in€theÏlosses€of€the€business€if€an€election€of€profits€is€made.€€The€assets€of€the€continuing€business€shallÏbe€treated€as€partnership€assets€until€final€settlement€of€the€accounts,€with€actual€distribution€toÏGriffin.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€Mary€Kathryn€Shepherd,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓ` Ü` È“XÓÓÓà à___________________________________Ìà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌHIGHERS,€J.€(Concurs)