The husband specifically argues that the trial court’s judgment awarding the wife 20% of KRIP, LLC (“KRIP”), was in error because, he says, that corporation is governed by an operating agreement that prevents the transfer of any membership interest without the consent of the other members. The operating agreement of KRIP specifically provides: “No Membership Interest shall be Disposed of ...[,] whether voluntarily or involuntarily, by operation of law or otherwise, without the consent of all the remaining Members .... ” The husband testified that KRIP is owned by him and Ryan Smith, who is the managing member. Smith was not added pp.1999) (noting that “the Partnership Agreement governed Husband’s assignment to Wife”); Nilsen v. Hanson, 709 A.2d 1190, 1191 (Me.1998) (<HOLDING>); Castonguay v. Castonguay, 306 N.W.2d 143,
recognizing that in a divorce action one partys limited partnership interest could not be assigned to the other party without the consent of the general partner holding that a partnership agreement that contained prohibitions against the sale or assignment of a partners interest in the partnership without the others consent would be enforced holding a mechanic working in a garage owned by a partnership is an employee of the partnership not the individual partner holding one partner can not sic maintain an action at law against another partner to recover an amount claimed by him by reason of partnership transactions until there has been a final settlement of the affairs of the partnership holding that a partner who is without actual authority has no power to bind the partnership in a transaction that is not within the ordinary and apparent scope of the partnership business any person dealing with a partner can only rely on the partners acts if they are within the ordinary and apparent scope of the partnership business