1.This is a case involving Claire and Lamar Roberts who jointly owed a plot of land near Courtney which they have used to grow young pine trees that are transplanted to areas devastated by wildfire. Claire and Lamar have long held a deep passion for nature and found the tree lot a good way to give back and also make a bit of money. Claire and Lamar have been married for nineteen years and have operated the tree lot for the past eighteen. When they initially started out the lot, they had pooled their money to purchase the plot of land. They had also decided that a joint bank account would be the most efficient way to manage the family finances. Claire and Lamar also took on distinct roles in the business: Lamar mostly managed the growth of the trees and Claire was responsible for the administration of the lot including the accounting. Also, to try to limit some of the tax hit, Lamar and Claire agreed to split the income from the lot on a fifty-fifty basis. All had been fine between Claire and Lamar until very recently when, Lamar took it upon himself to obtain a personal bank loan from Yates Savings and Loans for $50,000 which was to be spent on the tree lot. Lamar spent the entirety of the money on extraneous items like a $5,000 chainsaw and $35,000 tractor, and it quickly became obvious that the loan would never be repaid. Yates Savings and Loans has sued Lamar for the loan amount, but has also sued Claire alleging that she is personally liable for the loan.

Using the presumptions for the relevant law, would Claire be in a partnership with Lamar? Would Claire be personally liable for the loan?

In answering, explain and apply the relevant law.