Please read below.

What alternatives are available to Wilkinson and Walker to deal with this situation?

What are the advantages and disadvantages to each?

In $2010,$ three dentists$$Ben Rogers, Judy Wilkinson, and Henry Walker$$formed a partnership to open a practice in Toledo, Ohio. The partnership$$s primary purpose was to reduce expenses by sharing building and equipment costs, supplies, and the services of a clerical staff. Each contributed $$70,000$ in cash and, with the help of a bank loan, constructed a building and acquired furniture, fixtures, and equipment. Because the partners maintained their own separate clients, annual net income has been allocated as follows: Each partner receives the specific amount of revenues that he or she generated during the period less one$-$third of all expenses. From the beginning, the partners did not anticipate expansion of the practice; consequently, they could withdraw cash each year up to $90$ percent of their share of income for the period.

The partnership had been profitable for a number of years. Over the years, Rogers has used much of his income to speculate in real estate in the Toledo area. By $2020$ he was spending less time with the dental practice so that he could concentrate on his investments. Unfortunately, a number of these real estate deals proved to be bad decisions, and he incurred significant losses. On November $8,2020,$ while Rogers was out of town, his personal creditors filed a $$97,000$ claim against the partnership$$s assets. Unbeknownst to Wilkinson and Walker, Rogers had become personally insolvent.

Wilkinson and Walker hurriedly met to discuss the problem because Rogers could not be located. Rogers$$s capital account was currently at $$105,000,$ but the partnership had only $$27,000$ in cash and liquid assets. The partners knew that Rogers$$s dental equipment had been used for many years and could be sold for relatively little. In contrast, the building had appreciated in value, and Rogers$$s creditors$$ claims could be satisfied by selling the property. However, this action would have a tremendously adverse impact on the dental practice of the remaining two partners.