summary judgment is untenable with regard to the Exxon claim: it alternatively argues that the Exxon claim was an asset of the Joint Venture but that it did not owe a duty of disclosure to the Corporations-a theory we dismissed above; or that the Exxon claim was not an asset of the Joint Venture because the agreement set the date of accounting as the last day of the month preceding withdrawal. If we were to accept the Joint Venture's logic, there would be a period of almost a month during which the Corporations were members of the Joint Venture and were responsible for the venture's debts, but not entitled to share in the venture's assets. Such an outcome is not consonant with Alaska partnership law. See AS 32.05.030; see generally Winther v. Samuelson, 10 P.3d 1167, 1171 (Alaska 2000) (<HOLDING>). 31 . The Joint Venture and the Corporations
holding that with respect to civil forfeiture actions property issues concerning ownership are governed by the laws of the state in which the property is located holding under oregons larceny statute which is based on new yorks larceny statute that a partner cannot be charged with the theft of partnership property because oregon adheres to the commonlaw rule that partners cannot steal partnership property recognizing limited partnership interest as intangible personal property holding that ijnjuries caused by the condition of a public entitys property  clearly refers to ownership of a property interest which allows a public entity to control the property recognizing that partnership property is a type of ownership