use the IRAC Method to brief the case below. Most cases present 1 issue, but I believe there's more than 1 in this case. If there are more than 1 issue presented, you must do separate briefs for each issue, and give rules for all issues raised. For example, Issue: Partnership Property Rules Application Conclusion Issue: Partnership Capital Rules Application Conclusion Here is the case to brief: Finch v. Raymer Jeffrey Finch filed this lawsuit against his former girlfriend, Tina Raymer, in May 2008. Mr. Finch's complaint alleged that he and Ms. Raymer cohabitated for several years, and during their "co-habitation/ partnership," they acquired certain real and personal property as partnership property. Mr. Finch alleged that when the parties separated, Ms. Raymer ordered him to leave the residence where the parties were residing, and she refused to divide the parties' personal property. Mr. Finch sought an equal "one-half" division of the alleged partnership property, or property held in trust, and he sought an award of attorney fees. An answer to the complaint was filed denying that any of the disputed property was partnership property. A bench trial was held on November 10, 2011, in which the trial court heard testimony. Mr. Finch testified that he and Ms. Raymer worked together renovating the properties that they bought and that they made money together. He said that both he and Ms. Raymer would search for houses, would sit down together and look at books to get ideas for house plans, and then would draw up a set of plans themselves. The trial court found that a partnership between Mr. Finch and Ms. Raymer existed. As such, the court concluded that all of the disputed property was partnership property, and therefore, each party owned a one-half interest in the assets. Tennessee's version of the Revised Uniform Partnership Act provides that "the association of two (2) or more persons to carry on as co-owners of a business for profit forms a partnership, whether or not the persons intend to form a partnership." Tenn. Code Ann. 61-1-202( a). In other words, "if the parties' business brings them within the scope of a joint business undertaking for mutual profit-that is to say if they place their money, assets, labor, or skill in commerce with the understanding that profits will be shared between them-the result is a partnership whether or not the parties understood that it would be so." Bass v. Bass, 814 S.W. 2d 38, 41 (Tenn. 1991) (citing Pritchett v. Thomas Plater & Co., 144 Tenn. 406, 232 S.W. 961, 969-70 (1921)). The sharing of profits creates a rebuttable presumption of a partnership. Tenn. Code Ann. 61-1-202( c)( 3). However, in determining whether a partnership exists, no one fact or circumstance is conclusive. Martin v. Coleman, 19 S.W. 3d 757, 761 (Tenn. 2000). "All of the relevant facts, actions, and conduct of the parties must be considered." Id. The courts regularly derive the partners' intentions and understandings by considering: (1) the parties' statements, conduct, and writings when the property was acquired, (2) the parties' course of conduct after the acquisition of the property, (3) the use of the property in the partnership business, (4) the terms of the partnership agreement, (5) the listing of the property as an asset on the partnership books and tax returns, (6) the attribution of profits or losses from the property to the partnership, and (7) the use of partnership funds to maintain the property." Id. (citing Davis v. Loring, No. 01A01-9004-CV-00149, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 175, 1991 WL 32311, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 1991)). Property that is "acquired by" a partnership is property of the partnership, as an entity, and not property of the partners individually. Tenn. Code Ann. 61-1-203. The issue of when property is "acquired by" a partnership is governed by Tennessee Code Annotated section 61-1-204. The statute begins by stating, in subsection (a), that property is deemed partnership property if acquired in the name of the partnership or in the name of one or more of the partners with an indication in the instrument transferring title to the property of the person's capacity as a partner or of the existence of a partnership. Tenn. Code Ann. 61-1-204( a). The statute goes on to provide two rebuttable presumptions that apply when the partners have failed to express their intent by referring to the existence of a partnership in the title documents. First, subsection (c) provides that "property is presumed to be partnership property if purchased with partnership assets, even if not acquired in the name of the partnership or of one (1) or more partners with an indication in the instrument transferring title to the property of the person's capacity as a partner or the existence of a partnership." Tenn. Code Ann. 61-1-204( c). In other words, "property purchased with partnership funds is presumed to be partnership property, notwithstanding the name in which title is held." Tenn. Code Ann. 61-1-204 cmt. 3. The second, related presumption is found in subsection (d) of the statute, which provides that "property acquired in the name of one (1) or more of the partners, without an indication in the instrument transferring title to the property of the person's capacity as a partner or of the existence of a partnership and without use of partnership assets, is presumed to be separate property, even if used for partnership purposes." Tenn. Code Ann. 61-1-204( d). In this case, we derive the partners' intentions and understandings with regard to the property by considering numerous factors, mentioned above. The first two are "the parties' statements, conduct, and writings when the property was acquired" and "the parties' course of conduct after the acquisition of the property." Leckrone v. Walker, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 309, 2002 WL 773147, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2002). This Court finds it significant that the two previous houses where the parties lived, prior to Pack Hill Road, were, undisputedly, the subject of a partnership agreement between Mr. Finch and Ms. Raymer, whereby the parties would combine "their money, assets, labor, or skill" with the understanding that profits would be shared between them. It is hard for this Court to believe that every property purchased during the parties' relationship was partnership property except this one. Although the Pack Hill Road Property was titled solely in Ms. Raymer's name, like the two properties where they lived before, Mr. Finch testified that the parties looked at the Pack Hill Road property together and made a decision together to purchase it. The parties drew up plans for the house together, and it is undisputed that Mr. Finch contributed his labor, carpentry skill, and earnings to the construction of the residence and the shop on the property. Mr. Finch and Ms. Raymer jointly executed documents regarding the homeowner's insurance policy insuring the property. Partnership funds from the joint account were used to pay the monthly mortgage payment on the Pack Hill Road residence. Another factor for consideration is "the use of partnership funds to maintain the property." Leckrone, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 309, 2002 WL 773147, at *3. The profits of the partnership between 2004 and 2007 were deposited into the joint checking account, and the parties used that account, containing partnership funds, to pay for improving, insuring, and maintaining the Pack Hill Road residence. Another relevant factor for consideration is "the use of the property in the partnership business." 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 309, [2002 WL 773147,] at *3. Mr. Finch reported on his individual tax returns that the business address for his carpentry business was 618 Pack Hill Road. Mr. Finch and Mrs. Raymer were co-borrowers on the home equity line of credit against the Pack Hill Road Property, which enabled them to buy and sell more real estate in their partnership dealings. Considering all the circumstances, we conclude that the parties' conduct with regard to the Pack Hill Road residence was consistent with that of co-owners and partners. The Court, thus, finds that it was the intention of the parties that the Pack Hill Road property would be an asset of the partnership and not the individual property of Ms. Raymer. Mr. Finch established by clear and convincing evidence that the Pack Hill Road property was acquired for partnership purposes, although titled in Ms. Raymer's name alone. As for the disputed household appliances and furnishings, the trial court found that the household items were purchased with partnership funds combined with Mr. Finch's income, and therefore, they were partnership property. The only argument raised by the defendants is that property cannot qualify as partnership assets when it is not held for sale or profit. Finding no merit in the defendants' sole argument on appeal with regard to this property, we affirm the trial court's finding that the assets were partnership property owned one-half by each partner