
Jay R. McDaniel
Partner
201-896-7042 jmcdaniel@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Authors: Jay R. McDaniel, Michael Mietlicki
Date: September 28, 2026

Partner
201-896-7042 jmcdaniel@sh-law.com
Counsel
201-896-7193 mmietlicki@sh-law.com
Can you own part of a business in New Jersey without a written agreement? Yes, it is possible. Under New Jersey’s Uniform Partnership Act, a partnership can arise when two or more people carry on a business as co-owners for profit, whether or not they ever intended to form one. Ownership doesn’t necessarily depend on whether the participants signed a document or on how much work one of them performed. It turns on what the parties agreed to, how they structured the venture, and how they treated contributions, payments, and decision-making over time. When the arrangement is informal, and the participants now disagree, the answer comes from the full history of the relationship, not a single message or the absence of a signed agreement.
Consider two friends who start an online business. One contributes the money and forms the entity. The other develops the product and manages customers. Their messages refer to “splitting everything,” but they never document what that means. When the business starts generating revenue, the product developer asks for a share. The other participant responds that the arrangement was compensation for work, not ownership.
From there, the dispute can take several forms: whether the product developer is an owner at all, what percentage was promised, whether conditions on that promise were ever satisfied, or whether the developer is entitled only to payment for services. Neither the absence of a signed agreement nor the amount of work performed resolves those questions.
Yes. Even if the participants never took formal steps to create an entity, a partnership may arise under New Jersey’s Uniform Partnership Act (1996) when two or more people carry on a business as co-owners for profit, whether or not they intended to form a partnership. That means the participants may have legal rights and obligations toward one another that neither of them consciously chose.
A closely held business often begins informally before the participants form an LLC or corporation. The structure and timing of that transition affect how ownership is established, because the rules for membership in an LLC or share ownership in a corporation differ from the rules for an unincorporated venture.
Ownership disputes usually turn on the full history of the relationship, not a single document. Relevant evidence may include:
The description and treatment of a payment may matter as much as the payment itself. Money recorded as an owner contribution supports one account of the relationship. Regular payments treated as wages or contractor compensation support another.
The parties’ conduct can also help explain unclear communications. Referring to someone as a “partner” may support that person’s position, but it does not necessarily establish a particular ownership percentage or every term of the arrangement. In the online-business example, messages discussing a percentage, records identifying both participants as owners, or payments treated as distributions may help explain what “splitting everything” was meant to cover.
Not on its own. A contribution does not establish ownership without considering the terms on which it was made. The question is always what the participants agreed the contribution would buy.
Ownership of the business and ownership of particular assets, both tangible and intangible, are separate questions. An ownership dispute often also involves the company’s website, code, designs, inventory, equipment, branding, customer contracts, or other proprietary information, and intangible assets can be subject to federal and state intellectual property law.
The issue is whether the asset was transferred to the venture, licensed for its use, retained by an individual participant, or created as work for hire within an employment relationship. Assignments, service agreements, purchase records, account registrations, and communications may answer it.
In the example, the product developer may control the website account while the other participant claims the website belongs to the company. Account access does not establish ownership. Creating an asset also does not resolve whether the creator later transferred or licensed it to the business. Documenting how the assets came under the business’s control and use is critical to determining how those assets will be treated.
The appropriate remedy depends on what the evidence supports. A participant may seek:
Unresolved ownership disputes can become complex commercial litigation when the parties cannot establish or agree on their rights, and the dispute involves financial records, control of assets, or the continued operation of the business.
A negotiated resolution may allow the participants to define ownership, address outstanding payments and assets, allocate continuing responsibilities, or separate. Whatever the outcome, the agreement should accurately document the resulting rights and obligations so the same dispute does not resurface.
If you are in an unclear ownership arrangement and a dispute is developing, the steps you take early can shape the outcome:
Counsel can assess what the evidence supports and whether the objective should be recognition as an owner, payment for contributions, continued involvement, or an exit. Knowing what you are trying to protect is the starting point for choosing the right path.
Yes, it is possible. The answer depends on the type of entity, the applicable legal requirements, and evidence of the parties’ agreement and conduct. Under New Jersey’s Uniform Partnership Act, a partnership can arise when two or more people carry on a business as co-owners for profit, whether or not they intended to form one.
Not automatically. The evidence must connect the work to an ownership agreement, not to compensation or another arrangement. Work may earn compensation, immediate ownership, or a conditional right to receive equity later.
Gather communications, financial and ownership records, and evidence of how the participants managed and described the business to others. Ownership disputes usually turn on the full history of the relationship rather than a single document, and how a payment was labeled and treated can matter as much as the payment itself.
A promise may support a claim, but whether it is enforceable and whether ownership was actually granted are separate questions. Messages addressing future equity and work performed in reliance on an alleged promise of equity may be relevant evidence.
Profit sharing may be relevant, but ownership status and the terms governing economic rights require separate analysis. Calling someone a “partner” also does not necessarily establish a specific ownership percentage or every term of the arrangement.
It depends on whether the asset was transferred to the venture, licensed to it, kept by the person who created it, or created as work for hire by an employee. Having the login does not make you the owner, and creating the asset does not settle the question either.
When a business starts with a handshake, a single document rarely answers whether someone can own part of a business. The full record of what the participants agreed to and how they behaved answers it. Michael Mietlicki and Jay McDaniel of Scarinci Hollenbeck’s Litigation practice counsel business owners in ownership, control, and business divorce disputes across New Jersey and New York, from establishing an interest to valuing and separating it. If you are facing an unclear ownership arrangement, we encourage you to contact us.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!