Serious Partnership Problem

Areeda

Areeda

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
2,188
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Areeda
I need some help.

I am in a 4 person partnership (LLC). It has been working well for 2 years. From my perspective, it's been great.

Two of the members have had some minor friction in the past that just blew up into well I'm not sure whether to call it a feud or a hissy fit (hopefully they are not lurking here).

We anticipated in the agreement that one of us would have a psychotic break, I thought it would be me but never anticipated this. The other two of us don't have a problem with either one of the combatants.

The issue that is causing this brouhaha is minor and irrelevant (at least in my opinion) but the personality clash is ...well... a sight to behold.

I'm not sure what to do. We can vote out one of them but I refuse to choose. I wish they could work it out, but I'm not sure that's possible.

I'd like to get some advice. Believe me it's more personality than substance of the argument. What would you do?

Joe
 
I assume you've thought about all of the olive-branch and emissary solutions and have concluded they don't work. If they can't coexist, tell one to set the price and give the other the buy-sell decision for the share. Then recapitalize the deal for three owners and look elsewhere for a fourth owner.

Areeda said:
I need some help.

I am in a 4 person partnership (LLC). It has been working well for 2 years. From my perspective, it's been great.

Two of the members have had some minor friction in the past that just blew up into well I'm not sure whether to call it a feud or a hissy fit (hopefully they are not lurking here).

We anticipated in the agreement that one of us would have a psychotic break, I thought it would be me but never anticipated this. The other two of us don't have a problem with either one of the combatants.

The issue that is causing this brouhaha is minor and irrelevant (at least in my opinion) but the personality clash is ...well... a sight to behold.

I'm not sure what to do. We can vote out one of them but I refuse to choose. I wish they could work it out, but I'm not sure that's possible.

I'd like to get some advice. Believe me it's more personality than substance of the argument. What would you do?

Joe
Click to expand...
 
Well...I'm sure you've thought of this but you can always vote yourself off the island.

It wasn't an airplane partnership but I found myself in a situation in the past where I was glad to take a loss to exit a three ring circus of a business relationship. Well it gave me a tax break ;)
 
Threaten to cut the airplane in half and see who offers to give it up, then vote the other guy out? Sorry, I know you said serious, but that's all I could come up with. Good luck with whatever y'all decide!
 
wabower said:
I assume you've thought about all of the olive-branch and emissary solutions and have concluded they don't work. If they can't coexist, tell one to set the price and give the other the buy-sell decision for the share. Then recapitalize the deal for three owners and look elsewhere for a fourth owner.
Click to expand...
Wayne we were good enough to say in our agreement that it is the exiting partner's responsibility to find a replacement.

alaskaflyer said:
Well...I'm sure you've thought of this but you can always vote yourself off the island.

It wasn't an airplane partnership but I found myself in a situation in the past where I was glad to take a loss to exit a three ring circus of a business relationship. Well it gave me a tax break ;)
Click to expand...
I think this is how I feel. If you can't get along I don't want to play either.

Teller1900 said:
Threaten to cut the airplane in half and see who offers to give it up, then vote the other guy out? Sorry, I know you said serious, but that's all I could come up with. Good luck with whatever y'all decide!
Click to expand...
Well my piece would be worth a whole lot less if we cut the plastic. But Solomon got it to work. How hard can it be?

Joe
 
All I can offer is to love on both of them and urge them to see the effect of the silliness.

I have seen folks back off when they realized that their stubbornness (not sure if this is the case here though) was creating hardship for way more people than getting their way would help...

It might not hurt to point out that, if voted out, they create an issue for themselves...

Tough situation...
 
Areeda said:
I need some help.

I am in a 4 person partnership (LLC). It has been working well for 2 years. From my perspective, it's been great.

Two of the members have had some minor friction in the past that just blew up into well I'm not sure whether to call it a feud or a hissy fit (hopefully they are not lurking here).

We anticipated in the agreement that one of us would have a psychotic break, I thought it would be me but never anticipated this. The other two of us don't have a problem with either one of the combatants.

The issue that is causing this brouhaha is minor and irrelevant (at least in my opinion) but the personality clash is ...well... a sight to behold.

I'm not sure what to do. We can vote out one of them but I refuse to choose. I wish they could work it out, but I'm not sure that's possible.

I'd like to get some advice. Believe me it's more personality than substance of the argument. What would you do?

Joe
Click to expand...
It sounds like you wish to continue this as a relationship among friends. In that case I think all of you need to sit down and discuss the issue. Maybe have an impartial third party direct the conversation. Air the issues and don't get up until there is an agreement to solve them. That agreement could involve one of the partners leaving or other solutions.

Now if this arrangement is just a business arrangement then I would not do the above. In business you need to decide what is in the best interests of the business or int his case the partnership and make the decision. So the two of you need to decide what to do with the other two. If that involves asking one to leave then you have to bite the bullet and do it.
 
Joe, can you give us *some* idea of the nature of the actual dispute, the subject-matter? It might help in creative solution-finding.
 
When you have personality disputes, sometimes its helpful to bring in a skilled facilitator to help get them past the unilateral stances and start actually communicating. This could be a mediator, counselor, or someone in a role both look up to and respect.
 
If they can't work it out, then you'll probably have to dissolve the partnership. Either sell the plane outright or get rid of your portions. This gets into a problem because nobody's going to want to buy into a partnership in which two of the others are having a feud or hissy fit. Furthermore, any potential buyers of one of the two feuding partners is probably going to be reluctant buying into a feuding partnership.

I'd say either those two need to work it out, or you four need to sell the plane, at least those seem the most practical options. The first option seems a lot better to me.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'd say either those two need to work it out, or you four need to sell the plane, at least those seem the most practical options. The first option seems a lot better to me.
Click to expand...
But with the first option, even if the two manage to work something out this time there will always be a next time. Personality conflicts are pretty difficult to resolve permanently.
 
Everskyward said:
But with the first option, even if the two manage to work something out this time there will always be a next time. Personality conflicts are pretty difficult to resolve permanently.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That's why I didn't want to do a partnership and just bought my plane outright. I prefer an arrangement where one person owns the plane and is the ultimate authority, and then rents it out. That way there are no questions, and people can come and go from the arrangement as they please. Such an arrangement worked great for me with the Mooney. The owners were always the final authority, so there was never a question.
 
I'll mediate, and pick one to that needs to sell out his share.
 
Thanks Everyone! It helps alot.

smigaldi said:
It sounds like you wish to continue this as a relationship among friends. In that case I think all of you need to sit down and discuss the issue. Maybe have an impartial third party direct the conversation. Air the issues and don't get up until there is an agreement to solve them. That agreement could involve one of the partners leaving or other solutions.

Now if this arrangement is just a business arrangement then I would not do the above. In business you need to decide what is in the best interests of the business or int his case the partnership and make the decision. So the two of you need to decide what to do with the other two. If that involves asking one to leave then you have to bite the bullet and do it.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct, I would like it to continue as a partnership among friends. An impersonal business relationship would not be as much fun. I've thought of the 3rd party but can't decide whether a mediator to work out the current issue, a marriage counselor, or a psychiatrist who can prescribe disqualifying meds would be the best choice.

SCCutler said:
Joe, can you give us *some* idea of the nature of the actual dispute, the subject-matter? It might help in creative solution-finding.
Click to expand...
I am treating this forum as public with a good possibility that one or both of them will read it. If you're game I could PM you but I'm warning you it will sound a lot like "DAAAD Pinky is hitting me"

bbchien said:
Sell. Life is too short.
Click to expand...
That's plan B.

Everskyward said:
But with the first option, even if the two manage to work something out this time there will always be a next time. Personality conflicts are pretty difficult to resolve permanently.
Click to expand...
True. In my mind it's a question of whether or not these two can realize their differences and behave civilly toward each other. In return they get (almost) affordable access to a great cross country airplane.


Again, I really appreciate the discussion. Sorry for the lack of details.

Joe
 
Joe:

Things like this are, as much as anything, a lot like marriages - and egos can impede upon good judgment.

Sometimes, a fresh perspective can make all the difference in resolving a dispute; I am reminded of the disagreement over the use of the term, "Just Plane Smart" in advertising. Southwest Airlines was advertising like crazy with it, and it turned out that another business had been using the slogan for years (Stevens Aviation).

Litigation was threatened, but instead, it was resolved with humor, humility, money for charity and a lot of positive press for everyone involved.

Wikipedia said:
"Just Plane Smart"

Shortly after Southwest started using the "Just Plane Smart" motto, Stevens Aviation, who had been using "Plane Smart" for their motto, threatened a trademark lawsuit.[74]
Instead of a lawsuit, the CEOs for both companies staged an arm wrestling match. Held at the now demolished Dallas Sportatorium (the famed wrestling facility) and set for two out of three rounds, the loser of each round was to pay $5,000 to the charity of their choice, with the winner gaining the use of the trademarked phrase. A promotional video was created showing the CEOs "training" for the bout (with CEO Herb Kelleher being helped up during a sit up where a cigarette and glass of whiskey (Wild Turkey 101) was waiting) and distributed among the employees and as a video press release along with the video of the match itself. Herb Kelleher lost the match for Southwest, with Stevens Aviation winning the rights to the phrase. Kurt Herwald, CEO of Stevens Aviation, immediately granted the use of "Just Plane Smart" to Southwest Airlines. The net result was both companies having use of the trademark, $15,000 going to charity and a healthy dose of goodwill publicity for both companies.[75]
Click to expand...

My point being, someone to break the situation out of the mold might help. Feel free to PM basic background, and I'll think about possible approaches.
 
Joe, I assume that it would be contrary to your interests to dissolve the partnership but that certainly would end the conflict from your perspective.

I'm wondering how the personality conflict is affecting your involvement in the partnership. What would prevent the continued existence of the partnership while this issue exists? I'm thinking that you and the pther non-participant in the "hissy fit" might be able to act as intermediaries between the "hissies" WRT any partnership related issues while staying away from any non-partnership issues. You didn't say but I got the impression that the actual dispute is not directly related to the partnership and airplane and if that's correct that should make the approach I'm suggesting more plausible.

IOW, each of you two non-hissies pick one hissy to represent in the partnership (without getting into their dispute) and work something out that allows the partnership to continue as before except that the hissies won't need to interact directly, at least not until they come to their senses and put their personal dispute behind them and/or one or both leave the partnership. I strongly suspect that this approach is far more likely to succeed than any mediation, arbitration, or attempts by you non-hissies to get the hissies to reconcile (assuming you're not both successful psychotherapists).

To be as clear as possible, I guess what I'm really saying is rather than trying to resolve the conflict, find a way to make the partnership work in the presence of the conflict, at least for as long as it takes for one of the conflictees to separate himself from the partnership by finding a substitute.
 
Last edited:
Joe, I've been in a 5 person partnership for about 6 years now and we've occasionally had blow ups like yours. One lasted almost 6 months and had 2 partners not talking to the other 2, and the 5th trying to have a foot in both camps. In the end I think we all got tired and realized that it was in everyone's interest to find a way to go forward. P.S. our argument was financial in nature and had nothing to do with safety or plane operation.

I wish I was in a financial situation where I could own my own plane but that just won't happen so you basically have to sweat it through until people come to their senses.
 
Joe: I've been there in the past; have a great partner now.
I sat down with the other partners when there were issues and explained that I went to the AP to fly and have fun. Too much stress in my life already from work and didn't need to go to the AP to find more. It temporarily settled things down, but two other fellas were really sideways over what seemed to me to be minor stuff. We just eventually sat them down and said what Bruce reflected: life is too short; stay in and get along, or get out. We sold the plane. Took a couple months. Hope you can work something better out.

Best,

Dave
 
I bought my first glider in a 3 man partnership. I was the low time pilot (by far), but wanted to use it much more aggressively (i.e. fly cross country) than the other two. Basically, I got "kicked off the island." Happened behind my back, and it just crushed me at the time. However, that kind of forced my to buy my own (used) glider which I went on to fly for many hundreds of hours. In the end I could fly circles (in gliders) around the other two guys with their 30,000 pt 121 hours. So it all ended up for the best.
Some partnerships just aren't meant to be. If it's not fun, get out. There are countless other arrangements possible that will lead to less stress.
 
Joe, you have recevied some great responses! Scott's and Waynes seem like the way I would go. If that is not going to work Bruce may have the best solution. Just a bit of practical advice if I may. Mediation is great to solve disputes where the parties don't have to have future contact with each other such as in a personal injury case or a business dispute or dissolution. Mediating a current dipute and resolving it when the parties will likely get into another one due to their continued contact and personalities will be fruitless and therefore perhaps the best route to go is a counselor who may help them deal with issues better in the future. They should pay for this and if they don't boot them both out or get out yourself because it will just lead to future aggrevation.

Best of Luck.
 
Joe,

A lot of good ideas in this thread. I second (third?) (fourth?) the thought that life is too short.

But, here's a silver lining - be glad you've got some kind of operating agreement in place. If you didn't have that, your problems would potentially be far bigger than whatever you're facing now.

At any rate, while I'm not admitted in CA, please feel free to send me a PM if you'd like. I might be able to give you a few ideas, or at least an idea of what might be involved with various options you're considering.

Good luck getting it worked out.
 
I like the idea of mediation. There are quite a few ways to find a good mediator, but you can start by asking some local lawyers who do business law. Note, however, that like anything else that has real value, there will be a real cost. The question you'll have to answer is whether the cost of fixing things is lesser or greater than the cost of dissolving the partnership.
 
Many thanks to everybody.

I haven't taken Spike and David up on their very kind offer, yet.

I will keep you informed on progress.

Joe

here's the email I sent out today:

Gentlemen,

I have been reading the emails going back and forth. The issues appear to run deeper than the money that is owed. It would be logical for all of us to quickly resolve the issue of the money in the manner as set forth in our agreement. Once the money issues have been resolved, we must address the underlying issue which is causing an extreme strain on the partnership.

At this point, I do not think that the solution is deciding who is right and who is wrong; rather, it lies in how do we find a way to accommodate each other while respecting all of our idiosyncrasies, and I admit I have a few idiosyncrasies of my own. As in any interpersonal relationship that accompanies a business relation, the current issue will require some concessions on everyone's part. It is to all of our benefit to keep the LLC intact.

I hope that the we can address the issues as a group and decide how best achieve a resolution.

I know that I am stating the obvious; however, maybe, sometimes, we need to remember the simplest things. We thought enough of each other to enter into this agreement, let's see what we can do to make a go at fixing this diversion. Electronic communications like email lacks subtlety. Statements that are true but not absolute tend to polarize. What is meant as a statement of fact can be construed as a personal attack.

To paraphrase my brother in law, who at my wedding told me "now that you're married, you can be right or you can be happy" I say to my partners "If you have to be right, none of us will be happy"
Click to expand...
 
Areeda said:
Many thanks to everybody.

I haven't taken Spike and David up on their very kind offer, yet.

I will keep you informed on progress.

Joe

here's the email I sent out today:
Click to expand...

No offense taken if you don't! And...note my disclaimer below. :D

And, I think your e-mail is excellent. It sets a good tone, and kind of "puts you in the right." In my experience, which I've learned the hard way, you lose nothing by attempting to work things out amicably. Which is exactly what you're doing.

Good luck.
 
Well, the first thing you should do is stop referring to the other owners of LLC interests as partners, unless you want it shoved up your whatsis during the depositions.

Other than that, I'm impressed that you could spell those big words.

IMO, you handled it well. And don't ever forget (or forget to remind them) that these snarling matches always start with the little stuff.

When I conducted the mandatory interview with my 125 cops every year, none of them ever complained about the dangers of police work, shift work, or anything of substance. Instead, they bitched because they didn't like wearing their hats in the patrol car, wearing long-sleeve shirts if they had tatoos and picking up dead dogs after animal control went home for the day. Or as the FAA likes to say, "nothing is so small that we can't make a big deal of it."





Areeda said:
Many thanks to everybody.

I haven't taken Spike and David up on their very kind offer, yet.

I will keep you informed on progress.

Joe

here's the email I sent out today:
Click to expand...
 
I have a partner in my 150 who blows up at least 2 times a year. He is older and likes to chew me out like I was his kid. 99% of the time he is just a prick. On those occasions when he yells and gets in my face I give it back to him X2. I ain't taking any s**t from him, and he knows it. Every time he does it I tell him to sell his half of the plane or shut the F**k up.

It works for me.

David.
 
wabower said:
Well, the first thing you should do is stop referring to the other owners of LLC interests as partners, unless you want it shoved up your whatsis during the depositions.
Click to expand...
MEMBERS they aren't partners they are members of the LLC. I will write that 100 times on the chalkboard.


Other than that, I'm impressed that you could spell those big words.
Click to expand...
I had help.


IMO, you handled it well. And don't ever forget (or forget to remind them) that these snarling matches always start with the little stuff.

<snip>
Or as the FAA likes to say, "nothing is so small that we can't make a big deal of it."
Click to expand...
Words of wisdom. I may steal that quote. Goes right up there next to "We don't have station passage until the fat needle swings"

Joe
 
wabower said:
Well, the first thing you should do is stop referring to the other owners of LLC interests as partners, unless you want it shoved up your whatsis during the depositions.

Other than that, I'm impressed that you could spell those big words.

IMO, you handled it well. And don't ever forget (or forget to remind them) that these snarling matches always start with the little stuff.

When I conducted the mandatory interview with my 125 cops every year, none of them ever complained about the dangers of police work, shift work, or anything of substance. Instead, they bitched because they didn't like wearing their hats in the patrol car, wearing long-sleeve shirts if they had tatoos and picking up dead dogs after animal control went home for the day. Or as the FAA likes to say, "nothing is so small that we can't make a big deal of it."
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's not as dirty as saying "members." Tee hee hee! :blush: :) Trust me, I still have an 8th grade sense of humor (I accidentally spelled that "hummer" at first, by way of a Freudian Slip) - and you'll see names and words that just make you snicker, no matter how formal the setting!

And, in all seriousness, use of language can have a big effect in how things happen. As you've so rightly pointed out, little things can matter. Calling each other "members" in communications with each other could have the unwanted effect of formalizing relations, when they've been amicable and informal in the past on a more "partner like" basis. Trust me - when you start breaking out the legalese, relations can go downhill fast (I've learned that, both to my detriment and to my benefit).

You're also right to be concerned about the possible legal effects of terminology used, as a partnership could be deemed to exist in cases where no other relationship actually does in the right situation. But, being as they've got a formal operating agreement which is (I presume, I assume CA requires it) registered somehow with the state, that's not a concern.
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
When I conducted the mandatory interview with my 125 cops every year, none of them ever complained about the dangers of police work, shift work, or anything of substance. Instead, they bitched because they didn't like wearing their hats in the patrol car, wearing long-sleeve shirts if they had tatoos and picking up dead dogs after animal control went home for the day. Or as the FAA likes to say, "nothing is so small that we can't make a big deal of it."
Click to expand...
OTOH, if that's the most they have to grumble about (and they'll always find something about which to grumble), things are going very, very well. It's when you don't hear any complaints at all that you have to start worrying.
 
My partner in the T28 is something to behold. We've had this plane for 5 years now and the only argument we've ever gotten into was the 2 times we both wanted to fly with passengers. Then it went something like this "you go ahead, I'll fly tomorrow... no I'm don't need to fly today you go...Please you go...I don't want to, you go..."

It's a real pain having normal human beings as partners.

Joe
 
Areeda said:
My partner in the T28 is something to behold. We've had this plane for 5 years now and the only argument we've ever gotten into was the 2 times we both wanted to fly with passengers. Then it went something like this "you go ahead, I'll fly tomorrow... no I'm don't need to fly today you go...Please you go...I don't want to, you go..."

It's a real pain having normal human beings as CO-OWNERS.

Joe
Click to expand...

Yes it is.
 
Areeda said:
My partner in the T28 is something to behold. We've had this plane for 5 years now and the only argument we've ever gotten into was the 2 times we both wanted to fly with passengers. Then it went something like this "you go ahead, I'll fly tomorrow... no I'm don't need to fly today you go...Please you go...I don't want to, you go..."

It's a real pain having normal human beings as partners.

Joe
Click to expand...

You just described my partner in the P-Baron. Although, I guess he's a co-manager since we have an LLC <g>. Great when you find one. They are out there. Some folks just don't get it.

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
You just described my partner in the P-Baron. Although, I guess he's a co-manager since we have an LLC <g>. Great when you find one. They are out there. Some folks just don't get it.

Dave
Click to expand...
I've all too often heard of pilots spending a lot of time looking for the right airplane for a partnership they expect to put together when they really should be spending more of their time looking for the right partner(s). I know I almost made that mistake when I first started thinking about owning my first plane in a partnership. I naively thought that any pilot interested in sharing a plane would do but soon found out that potential partners are a dime a dozen but good partners are fairly rare.
 
Reading this just reminds me why I decided longer ago than most of you have been alive, that I will walk before I have a partner(s)...
As a result I only fly the junk I can afford - but - I do not have to ask anyone's opinion or permission about the plane...

Lots of good/civil/workable opinions offered on the topic though - refreshing for a chat group...

denny-o
 
Dr. O said:
Reading this just reminds me why I decided longer ago than most of you have been alive, that I will walk before I have a partner(s)...
As a result I only fly the junk I can afford - but - I do not have to ask anyone's opinion or permission about the plane...

Lots of good/civil/workable opinions offered on the topic though - refreshing for a chat group...

denny-o
Click to expand...
A good partner can make aircraft ownership even more enjoyable. It can be really nice to have someone to share the effort of washing and other maintenance, not to mention splitting the fixed costs in half. If you can live with the schedule conflicts and are able to find a compatible partner (it helps a lot if you are compatible yourself) a two or three way ownership could work well. But like you, these days I prefer the total control and lack of conflicts (personality and/or scheduling) provided by sole ownership and only reflect fondly on my partnership days when a big bill comes along.
 
Dr. O said:
Reading this just reminds me why I decided longer ago than most of you have been alive, that I will walk before I have a partner(s)...
Click to expand...
I've been thinking about that a lot lately. Perhaps sometimes later this year, or earlier next year, I'll be either trying to find a partnership on an airplane I *really* want -- or I'll be buying something on my own that I can afford to fully own.

I haven't decided which way to go yet.. We shall see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top