NEAL, Judge.

Plaintiff-appellee Norman E. Sweet (Sweet) brought an action for dissolution of an alleged partnership and for an accounting in the Ripley Circuit Court against defendant-appellant Paul Eugene Vohland (Vohland). From a judgment in favor of Sweet in the amount of $58,733, Vohland appeals.

We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

The undisputed facts reveal that Sweet, as a youngster, commenced working in 1956 for Charles Vohland, father of Paul Eugene Vohland, as an hourly employee in a nursery operated by Charles Vohland and known as Clarksburg Dahlia Gardens. Upon the completion of his military service, which was performed from 1958 to 1960, he resumed his former employment. In approximately 1963 Charles Vohland retired, and Vohland commenced what became known as Vohland’s Nursery, the business of which was landscape gardening. At that time Sweet’s status changed. He was to receive a 20 percent share of the net profit of the enterprise after all of the expenses were paid. Expenses included labor, gasoline, insurance, burlap, nails, insecticide, fertilizer, seed, straw, plants, stock and seedlings, and any other expense. The compensation was paid on an irregular basis. Every week, two weeks, or perhaps even a month, Sweet and Vohland sat down and computed all income that had been received and all expenses that had been incurred since the last settlement. After the expenses had been deducted from the income, Sweet would receive a check for 20 percent *862of the balance. Occasionally Sweet would receive an advance draw which would be deducted from his next settlement. No Social Security or income tax was withheld from the checks.

No partnership income tax returns were filed. Vohland and his wife, Gwenalda, filed a joint return in which the business of Vohland’s Nursery was reported in Voh-land’s name on Schedule C. Money paid Sweet was listed as a business expense under “Commissions.” Also listed on Schedule C were all of the expenses of the nursery, including investment credit and depreciation on trucks, tractors, and machinery. Sweet’s tax returns declared that he was a self-employed salesman at Vohland’s Nursery. He filed a self-employment Schedule C and listed as income the income received from the nursery; as expenses he listed travel, advertising, phone, conventions, automobile, and trade journals. He further filed a Schedule C-3 for self-employment Social Security for the receipts from the nursery.

Vohland handled all of the finances and books and did most of the sales. He borrowed money from the bank solely in his own name for business purposes, including the purchase of the interests of his brothers and sisters in his father’s business, operating expenses, bid bonds, motor vehicles, taxes, and purchases of real estate. Sweet was not involved in those loans. Sweet managed the physical aspects of the nursery and supervised the care of the nursery stock and the performance of the contracts for customers. Vohland was quoted by one customer as saying Sweet was running things and the customer would have to see Sweet about some problem.

Evidence was contradictory in certain respects. The Vohland Nursery was located on approximately 13 acres of land owned by Charles Vohland. Sweet testified that at the commencement of the arrangement with Vohland in 1963, Charles Vohland grew the stock and maintained the inventory, for which he received 25 percent of the gross sales. In the late 1960’s, because of age, Charles Vohland could no longer perform. The nursery stock became depleted to nearly nothing, and new arrangements were made. An extensive program was initiated by Sweet and Vohland to replenish and enlarge the inventory of nursery stock; this program continued until February, 1979. The cost of planting and maintaining the nursery stock was assigned to expenses before Sweet received his 20 percent. The nursery stock generally took up to ten years to mature for market. Sweet testified that at the termination of the arrangement there existed $293,665 in inventory which had been purchased with the earnings of the business. Of that amount $284,860 was growing nursery stock. Vohland, on the other hand, testified that the inventory of 1963 was as large as that of 1979, but the inventory became depleted in 1969. Voh-land claimed that as part of his agreement with Charles Vohland he was required to replenish the nursery stock as it was sold, and in addition pay Charles Vohland 25 percent of the net profit from the operation. He contends that the inventory of nursery stock balanced out. However, Voh-land conceded on cross-examination that the acquisition and enlargement of the existing inventory of nursery stock was paid for with earnings and, therefore, was financed partly with Sweet’s money. He further stated that the consequences of this financial arrangement never entered his mind at the time.

Sweet’s testimony, denied by Vohland, disclosed that, in a conversation in the early 1970’s regarding the purchase of inventory out of earnings, Vohland promised to take care of Sweet. Vohland acknowledged that Sweet refused to permit his 20 percent to be charged with the cost of a truck unless his name was on the title. Sweet testified that at the outset of the arrangement Voh-land told him, “he was going to take . . . me in and that ... I wouldn’t have to punch a time clock anymore, that I would be on a commission basis and that I would be, have more of an interest in the business if I had ‘an interest in the business.’ . . . He referred to it as a piece of the action.” Sweet testified that he intended to enter into a partnership. Vohland asserts that no *863partnership was intended and that Sweet was merely an employee, working on a commission. There was no contention that Sweet made any contribution to capital, nor did he claim any interest in the real estate, machinery, or motor vehicles. The parties had never discussed losses.

After Charles Vohland died (in 1973) Vohland contends that he paid $1,000 a year to Mary Crystal Vohland, his stepmother and current owner of the 13 acres, as a gift, and in addition replenished the nursery stock as it was taken and sold. Sweet contends the payments were a flat fee for the use of the land.

ISSUES

Vohland presents four issues for review:

I.Was the evidence sufficient to support the finding of the trial court that Sweet had a 20 percent interest in the inventory of the landscaping business?

II.Was the evidence sufficient to support the finding of the trial court that Vohland failed to advise Sweet that trees, materials, and supplies were costs of doing business and that “net” was the amount left after such costs had been paid in full?

III. Was the evidence sufficient to support the finding of the trial court that Vohland and Sweet had an inventory with a value of $293,665?

IV. Was the evidence sufficient to support the conclusion of law of the trial court that the business relationship of the parties, Vohland and Sweet, was a partnership?

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Issues I, II and IV. Existence of partnership

The principal point of disagreement between Sweet and Vohland is whether the arrangement between them created a partnership, or a contract of employment of Sweet by Vohland as a salesman on commission. It therefore becomes necessary to review briefly the principles governing the establishment of partnerships.

It has been said that an accurate and comprehensive definition of a partnership has not been stated; that the lines of demarcation which distinguish a partnership from other joint interests on one hand and from agency on the other, are so fine as to render approximate rather than exhaustive any attempt to define the relationship. Bacon v. Christian, (1916) 184 Ind. 517, 111 N.E. 628.

A partnership is defined by Ind.Code 23-4-l-6(l) (Uniform Partnership Act of 1949):

“A partnership is an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit.”

Ind.Code 23-4-1-7 sets forth the rules for determining the existence of a partnership:

“In determining whether a partnership exists, these rules shall apply:

(1) Except as provided by section 16 persons who are not partners as to each other are not partners as to third persons.

(2) Joint tenancy, tenancy in common, tenancy by the entireties, joint property, common property, or part ownership does not of itself establish a partnership, whether such co-owners do or do not share any profits made by the use of the property.

(3) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived.

(4) The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were received in payment:

(a) As a debt by instalments or otherwise,

(b) As wages of an employee or rent to a landlord,

(c) As an annuity to a widow or representative of a deceased partner,

*864(d) As interest on a loan though the amount of payment vary with the profits of the business,

(e) As the consideration for the sale of a good will of a business or other property by instalments or otherwise.”

Under Ind.Code 23-4-1-7(4) receipt by a person of a share of the profits is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business. Endsley v. Game-Show Placements, Ltd., (1980) Ind.App., 401 N.E.2d 768. Lack of daily involvement for one partner is not per se indicative of absence of a partnership. Endsley, supra. A partnership may be formed by the furnishing of skill and labor by others. The contribution of labor and skill by one of the partners may be as great a contribution to the common enterprise as property or money. Watson v. Watson, (1952) 231 Ind. 385, 108 N.E.2d 893. It is an established common law principle that a partnership can commence only by the voluntary contract of the parties. Bond v. May, (1906) 38 Ind.App. 396, 78 N.E. 260. In Bond it was said, “[t]o be a partner, one must have an interest with another in the profits of a business, as profits. There must be a voluntary contract to carry on a business with intention of the parties to share the profits as common owners thereof.” Id., 38 Ind.App. at 402, 78 N.E. 260. In Bacon, supra, in reviewing the law relative to the creation of partnerships, the court said:

“From these, and other expressions of similar import, it is apparent to establish the partnership relation, as between the parties, there must be (1) a voluntary contract of association for the purpose of sharing the profits and losses, as such, which may arise from the use of capital, labor or skill in a common enterprise; and (2) an intention on the part of the principals to form a partnership for that purpose. But it must be borne in mind, however, that the intent, the existence of which is deemed essential, is an intent to do those things which constitute a partnership. Hence, if such an intent exists, the parties will be partners notwithstanding that they proposed to avoid the liability attaching to partners or [have] even expressly stipulated in their agreement that they were not to become partners. [Citation omitted]

It is the substance, and not the name of the arrangement between them, which determines their legal relation toward each other, and if, from a consideration of all the facts and circumstances, it appears that the parties intended, between themselves, that there should be a community of interest of both the property and profits of a common business or venture, the law treats it as their intention to become partners, in the absence of other controlling facts.”

Id. 184 Ind. at 521-522, 111 N.E. 628.

Watson, supra, has substantial similarities to the case at bar, and the reader should study it. Briefly, the facts disclose that in a suit for the dissolution of a partnership and an accounting, Mary Watson commenced to work on a farm, and thereafter, in 1945, she assumed the management thereof. She made no capital contributions, and there was no specific agreement, oral or written. At the commencement, the farm and certain machinery and livestock were owned by Keller. From the proceeds of the sale of grain, livestock, and produce, new and additional machinery was purchased, and the herds of livestock were increased. Debts on old machinery were retired. Separate income tax returns were filed reflecting that, in approximate terms, Mary Watson received one fourth, Elizabeth Watson one fourth, and Keller one half the net income of the farming operation. The court, citing Bacon, supra, affirmed the trial court’s money judgment in favor of Mary Watson for a portion of the increase of the machinery and livestock herds. The court stated:

“The facts and circumstances in this case are such that the court might readily conclude therefrom that Alice C. Keller, Elizabeth Watson and Mary E. Watson ‘intended, between themselves, that there should be a community of interest’ in any increment in the value of the capital and in the profits of their common venture in the operation of the Keller Farm. We *865find no controlling facts to the contrary, and under these circumstances the law will presume that they intended to form a partnership. [Citations omitted]

We believe the evidence here presents a state of facts from which the trial court could legally infer the establishment of a partnership with appellee having a one-fourth interest, appellant, Elizabeth Watson, a one-fourth interest, and appellant, Alice C. Keller, a one-half interest.”

Watson, 231 Ind. 391-393, 108 N.E.2d 893. The Watson court struck down the argument made in the ease at bar that Mary Watson made no capital contribution, stating that a partner may contribute skill and labor in lieu of capital. The court rested its decision on the grounds that Mary received no salary or wages for her services, and her sole income was from one fourth of the net profits arising from the operation of the farm.

The standard of review for a case such as this was stated in Endsley, supra.

“In reviewing the evidence to determine its sufficiency, we may only look to that evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom most favorable to the appellee. Butler v. Forker (1966), 139 Ind.App. 602, 221 N.E.2d 570. This Court will neither weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Butler, supra. It is the province of the trial court to determine which witness to believe when it hears the evidence. Jackman v. Jackman (1973), 156 Ind.App. 27, 294 N.E.2d 620, 625. We cannot reverse upon the basis of conflicting evidence. Franks v. Franks (1975), 163 Ind.App. 346, 323 N.E.2d 678, 680. In order to reverse the finding of the trial court, the evidence must lead solely to a conclusion which is contrary to that reached by the lower court. Butler, supra; Puzich, supra. In viewing the evidence before us in the prescribed fashion, we find that it does not lead solely to a conclusion which is contrary to that reached by the trial court.”

Id. 401 N.E.2d at 771-772. In the analysis of the facts, we are first constrained to observe that should an accrual method of accounting have been employed here, the enhancement of the inventory of nursery stock would have been reflected as profit, a point which Vohland, in effect, concedes. We further note that both parties referred to the 20 percent as “commissions.” To us the term “commission,” unless defined, does not mean the same thing as a share of the net profits. However, this term, when used by landscape gardeners and not lawyers, should not be restricted to its technical definition. “Commission” was used to refer to Sweet’s share of the profits, and the receipt of a share of the profits is prima facie evidence of a partnership. Though evidence is conflicting, there is evidence that the payments were not wages, but a share of the profit of a partnership. As in Watson, supra, it can readily be inferred from the evidence most favorable to support the judgment that the parties intended a community of interest in any increment in the value of the capital and in the profit. As shown in Watson, absence of contribution to capital is not controlling, and contribution of labor and skill will suffice. There is evidence from which it can be inferred that the parties intended to do the things which amount to the formation of a partnership, regardless of how they may later characterize the relationship. Bacon, supra. From the evidence the court could find that part of the operating profits of the business, of which Sweet was entitled to 20 percent, were put back into it in the form of inventory of nursery stock. In the authorities cited above it seems the central factor in determining the existence of a partnership is a division of profits.

From all the circumstances we cannot say that the court erred in finding the existence of a partnership.

Issue III. Excessive judgment

Vohland argues that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that the value of the inventory was $293,665. The court’s award to Sweet was 20 percent of this amount. Vohland argues that the fig*866ure testified to by Sweet included $284,860 in nursery stock growing on land owned by Mary Crystal Vohland, and this stock was therefore her property. However, the evidence is clear that some sort of lease arrangement was involved wherein Mary Crystal Vohland was paid and the stock could be removed without her prior consent. Vohland cites no authority to support his contention, nor does he develop any cogent argument as to why nursery stock planted on leased premises are not fructus indus-triales.

Generally, fructus industriales, . such as growing crops, are considered to be personal property and are not a part of the real estate. Niagara Oil Company v. Ogle, (1912) 177 Ind. 292, 98 N.E. 60; Perry v. Hamilton, (1893) 138 Ind. 271, 35 N.E. 836; Richardson v. Scroggham, (1974) 159 Ind.App. 400, 307 N.E.2d 80; 9 I.L.E. Crops § 2. However Vohland makes a bare assertion unsupported by authority that insomuch as Mary Crystal Vohland owned the real estate, neither he nor Sweet had any interest whatever in the nursery stock planted there at the admitted expense of Sweet and Voh-land. We hold that Vohland has not complied with Ind. Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(7) by presenting citations of authorities and cogent argument, and has waived that issue. Krueger v. Bailey, (1980) Ind.App., 406 N.E.2d 665; American Optical Company v. Weidenhamer, (1980) Ind.App., 404 N.E.2d 606; Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Pomeroy, (1967) 141 Ind.App. 288, 227 N.E.2d 448.

For the above reasons this cause is affirmed.

Affirmed.

RATLIFF, P. J., and ROBERTSON, J., concur.

HOWARD, Judge.

This appeal arises out of an action for divorce filed by Bertha Myrland, appellee, wherein she alleged that the parties had no community property and sought an order determining that all real and personal property in dispute which was in her name only, was her sole and separate property.

In his answer and two-count counterclaim the defendant-appellant alleged that the parties had substantial community property and common income in excess of $1,250 per month which was under the control of the plaintiff; that the parties had entered into a partnership in 1942; and that the assets acquired by the plaintiff were assets of the partnership acquired prior to the parties’ marriage in 1952 and were community assets acquired by them after marriage in continuation of the partnership.

Otto Myrland appeals from that portion of the judgment decreeing certain property to be the sole and separate property of the appellee and awarding him the net amount of $937.43 together with interest as his share of the community property.1 He also attacks the trial court’s findings and conclusions that he failed to sustain his burden of proving a partnership agreement and that no such agreement of partnership was entered into.

The action was tried to the court, sitting without a jury, and required four days of trial due to the complex fact situation involved. The salient facts, viewed in a light favorable to the judgment, are as follows: In 1941, appellee, then Bertha Lester, was a widow with three minor children. She owned and operated a business known as the Rio Rita Bar, which she had inherited from her husband, on leased property located on East Speedway and *500•Tucson Boulevard in Tucson, Arizona. At that time appellant, a disbarred lawyer, was married to Imogene Myrland. The parties became acquainted during 1941 and in 1942, Mr. Myrland began to work as a bartender at Mrs. Lester’s bar. He also supervised a program of remodeling the premises in order to improve the business. This included moving toilets to the interior of the building, placing a window in front of the building, changing the lighting, and making some other improvements, which were all paid for by Mrs. Lester. Both parties devoted their entire working time to the operation of the bar business on a daily basis from 1942 through July 31, 1947, when the lease expired. At that time the landlord wanted a substantial increase in rent and Mrs. Lester permanently closed the business.

Mr. Myrland’s testimony concerning the foregoing period was that on or about May, 1942, the parties entered into an agreement to jointly operate the Rio Rita Bar for profit. Mrs. Myrland’s testimony was that at all times Mr. Myrland was an employee and was paid in cash on an hourly basis. No written agreement was produced.

In 1947, at Mrs. Lester’s request, Mr. Myrland established his residence in Mrs. Lester’s home and did not pay for meals or rent. During the same year, Mrs. Lester purchased a vacant lot in her own name at Speedway and Dodge Boulevard in Tucson. A building was constructed on the lot for the operation of a new bar business, also to be known as the Rio Rita Bar. The lot •cost $8,750 and the construction and bar furnishings cost approximately $23,000. Of this sum; $24,750 was derived from the earnings of the old Rio Rita Bar and $7,000 was in the form of a loan from the Valley National Bank, which was secured by a mortgage on Mrs. Lester’s home, her separate property.

The appellant assisted Mrs. Lester at every step in the establishment of the new Rio Rita Bar. He worked with the real estate broker, the architect, and the workmen involved in the construction of the new building. Prior to opening, both parties went to Los Angeles to purchase furniture and fixtures for the bar from a hotel supply company which paid their travel expenses.

The new Rio Rita Bar at Speedway and Dodge Boulevard was opened for business on December 24, 1947, and both parties operated it. The Number 6 liquor license remained in Mrs. Lester’s name.

On July 31, 1948, Mrs. Lester sold the Rio Rita Bar and the premises were leased for a rental of $400 a month. From that time until June, 1949, the parties had no business, were not engaged in any moneymaking operations, continued to live together at appellee’s home and sustained themselves from the proceeds of the sale of the Rio Rita and the rental income from the bar property.

In June, 1949, the parties began negotiations to purchase property located at Jaynes Station, Tucson, known as Johnny’s Outpost, which consisted of two and one-half acres of land, a pump, a well, a building in which a bar business known as Johnny’s Outpost was being conducted, a one-bedroom house, a cafe, a service station and an unfinished cement block building.

The property was purchased in Mrs. Lester’s name for approximately $50,000. The sale was consummated on July 1, 1949, and Mr. Myrland established a temporary residence at Jaynes Station. Both parties commenced operation of the bar business in the same manner as they had operated the Rio Rita Bar and devoted substantially all their time to its operation.

In 1951, the State of Arizona initiated the first of two condemnation actions on a portion of the Jaynes Station-property for construction of the Interstate Highway from Tucson to Phoenix. Settlement negotiations failed and the matter went to trial. Mrs. Lester was represented by her son, Ralph Lester, an attorney, and since she was out of state at the time, Mr. Myr-land testified as to damages. Appellee received an award of $15,000 plus interest of *501approximately $2,000. The $17,000 was applied to the mortgage on the property and the liquidation of a note.

The new highway was located at the rear of Johnny’s Outpost and Mr. Myrland remodeled the building so as to place the front entrance where the rear of the building had been.

In June, 1952, Mr. Myrland obtained a divorce from his wife and on July 29, 1952, he and appellee were married in New Mexico. After the marriage there was no substantial change in the manner in which the Outpost business was conducted or in the manner in which the parties lived in appellee’s home.

The Outpost Bar was operated by them until it was sold in August, 1953. Appellee also leased part of the property and in one lease to the Standard Oil Company appellant executed a disclaimer to that portion of the property. In 1966, the State initiated a second condemnation action. Appel-lee received approximately $42,000 as damages and interest of $9,000. In addition, she was receiving the following rental income: $300 a month from the Outpost Bar; $112.50 a month from American Oil Company; $150 a month minimum from Standard Oil; and $500 per month from the Rio Rita Bar.

From 1953 when the Outpost Bar was sold, until August 19, 1969, the date appel-lee filed her complaint for divorce, the parties maintained themselves from the rents derived from the properties in appel-lee’s name. Their home and two adjacent lots remained in the name Bertha Lester, as did the Rio Rita Bar property and Jaynes Station, and all of these properties were acquired by appellee prior to her marriage to appellant in July, 1952.

Appellee maintained several bank accounts over which she exercised almost total and complete dominion. In 1949, she opened a trust account at Tucson Federal Savings for her daughter in the amount of $11,183.27. In December, 1953, she opened trust accounts for her sons, one for $9,844.62 and the other for $9,875.32. In November, 1966, Mrs. Myrland opened a joint savings account with $10,000 from the second condemnation award and transferred the funds into her name only on August 18, 1969, the day after an altercation between the parties and one day prior to filing her complaint for divorce. Mrs. Myrland also maintained two accounts in Southern Arizona Bank, both solely in her name. She also banked at the Valley National Bank, and only one certificate of deposit, in the amount of $3,000 was a joint account. The account became inactive, matured and was transferred to a certificate in the name of Mrs. Myrland. It was kept in her safe deposit box, to which Mr. Myrland had no access. Of an approximate $82,299.94 in various banks, only a total of $15,149.51 had ever been in joint accounts with appellant. Mr. Myrland testified that the only time he was permitted to sign checks was during a short period while Mrs. Myrland was in the hospital. He also testified that Mrs. Myrland handled all income, the condemnation awards, and he did not know exactly what she did with the money or how she had invested it. He never asked her for an accounting.

This case presents two primary issues on appeal: (1) Whether or not during the years prior to their marriage, the parties entered into an agreement whereby Mr. Myrland was to be a partner with appellee so that he acquired an interest in' her property; (2) whether or not the property acquired in appellee’s name prior to her marriage to Mr. Myrland and the cash accretions thereto in the seventeen years after the marriage is the sole and separate property of appellee or the community property of the parties.

THE PARTNERSHIP ISSUE

In his counterclaim Mr. Myrland asserted that prior to their marriage the parties entered into an agreement, the substance of which was that everything appellee owned was to belong to both of them.

Mrs. Myrland repeatedly denied the existence of any such agreement during direct *502examination and cross-examination. Her position was that not only had no oral agreement been entered into, but that the conduct of the parties, especially her complete control over all income, demonstrated that Mr. Myrland was, during their years of working together, an employee.

The trial court made three pertinent findings of fact on the partnership issue, which this court is compelled to uphold upon an examination of the record:

“4. Defendant asserts an interest in the property of plaintiff pursuant to an agreement of partnership which is alleged to have been entered into some time in the year 1942.

5. Defendant has failed to sustain the burden of proof as to the alleged partnership agreement.

6. No agreement of partnership was entered into between the parties.”

Mr. Myrland testified that one of the reasons for a lack of documentation as to a partnership agreement was that at the time he became associated with appellee he was a married man, and he wanted to be in a position, if interrogated under oath as to his property holdings, to deny ownership of property, thereby making his interest unavailable to his first wife.

In a further attempt to establish the existence of a partnership and to refute Mrs. Myrland-’s position that he had been an employee, Mr. Myrland showed the court that in all the years he worked with appellee, she did not withhold any social security or federal withholding taxes, and at no time listed him as an employee under Workmen’s Compensation, as she did for other “employees”. However, Mr. Myrland compounded the above in that for the years prior to marrying appellee, from 1942 through 1952, he never filed any income tax returns for himself or for the alleged partnership. As a former lawyer, Mr. Myrland was familiar with the obligation to report all income. Mrs. Myrland’s testimony is that she did not withhold taxes or list Otto as an- employee because “he didn’t want to.”

Mr. Myrland also pointed out that he had authority to go into the cash register at the Outpost and take advances on money due him, merely leaving “tickets” saying how much he took. He was able to do this, according to appellee, “whenever he felt like it.”

While the above facts and other too numerous to describe in detail, do not necessarily present the usual employer-employee relationship, one cannot make a leap from a special or unusual financial and social relationship and convert it into a legal partnership, where certain critical indicia are absent.

Although courts have encountered difficulty in setting forth exact tests by which to determine the existence or nonexistence of a partnership relation, in the last analysis the facts, circumstances, and most important, the intention of the parties control. Tripp v. Chubb, 69 Ariz. 31, 208 P.2d 312 (1949).

Lack of partnership documentation is not the critical factor as a partnership may be formed by an oral agreement. Johnson v. Hill, 1 Ariz.App. 290, 402 P.2d 225 (1965).

A.R.S. § 29-206 defines a partnership: “A partnership is an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit.”

However, A.R.S. § 29-207 sets forth rules for determining the existence of partnership, including:

“4. The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is pri-ma facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were received in payment:

* * * * * *

(b) As wages of an employee

There was sufficient evidence presented by Mrs. Myrland to refute the claim that the parties were “co-owners.” A participation in profits does not necessarily constitute the recipient a legally re*503sponsible partner, in the absence of such fundamental requisites as intention, co-ownership of the business, community of interest, and community of power in administration. 59 Am.Jur.2d Partnership §§ 43, 48 (1971).

The parties in the instant case had an unusual social and business relationship, but Mr. Myrland did not prove that it rose to the level of a true, legal partnership. At most, he was special employee because of his personal relationship with appellee and her reliance on his expertise in legal and business matters. Mrs. Myrland’s control over her property and income, her denial of a partnership agreement, and the secondary role Mr. Myrland played in relation to the control and authority over the property affirm the trial court’s conclusion that no partnership agreement was entered into between the parties, and hence Mr. Myrland acquired no interest in appellee’s property.

THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY ISSUE

Mr. Myrland proposes that he has an interest in the Rio Rita property acquired in 1947, the Outpost property acquired in 1949, and income derived from both businesses under a partnership theory prior to marriage, or under a community property theory after his marriage to Mrs. Myrland in 1952, by virtue of their joint and common efforts in the operation and enhancement of the properties. He alleges that the value of the common property increased because of his business judgment, management and work in the two business operations. He also alleges that there was extensive commingling of the joint or common property with community property, evidencing an intent that it was all community.

Mr. Myrland finally claims a one-half interest in all monies from the businesses which had, at one time or another, been deposited by Mrs. Myrland in joint accounts, citing the doctrine of O’Hair v. O’Hair, 16 Ariz.App. 565, 494 P.2d 765 (1972). The O’Hair decision was released by our Supreme Court a week before oral argument in the instant appeal. It held that the form of a bank account is not sufficient to establish the intent of the depositor to give another a joint interest in or ownership of the deposit, and it is the intention of the depositor which is controlling. O’Hair v. O’Hair, 109 Ariz. 236, 508 P.2d 66 (1973). We find the evidence to be that appellee did not intend to change the character of a portion of her sole and separate funds by temporarily placing them in joint accounts with appellant, and the joint custody of the accounts negatives any idea of a gift. Appellant, therefore, obtained no ownership of funds placed in joint accounts by appellee, over which she. maintained control, and which she placed in her sole name prior to the litigation below. As the creator of the bank accounts and the holder of the bank books, Mrs. Myrland was free to withdraw these funds, which had their source in her separate property, and to do with them as she chose. There was no showing that the joint accounts were commingled with community property and no showing that they were intended to be a gift to appellant.

The partnership issue has already been resolved in Mrs. Myrland’s favor, and we believe that the well-settled principles of community property law will resolve the above issues in Mrs. Myrland’s favor as well.

The basic principle here applicable is that the status or character of property is determined at the time of acquisition. In Arizona, property owned or acquired prior to marriage is separate property and does not become community property after marriage. A.R.S. § 25-213. It is possible for the separate character of such property to be altered after marriage by agreement, gift or commingling; however in the absence of such circumstances, it remains separate property after marriage. Lovin v. Woodward, 45 Ariz. 105, *50440 P.2d 102 (1935). Once the character of property as separate has been determined, it does not change except by agreement or operation of law, Porter v. Porter, 67 Ariz. 273, 195 P.2d 132 (1948), and it remains separate during marriage even though it may be sold and other property purchased with the proceeds. Nace v. Nace, 104 Ariz. 20, 448 P.2d 76 (1968).

In the instant case the trial court found as a fact and concluded that Mrs. Myrland acquired and owned as her sole and separate property the Rio Rita and Outpost properties. Both were purchased by her prior to her marriage to appellant in 1952 although appellant did work in the businesses since 1942. From 1942 until 1953 when the Outpost was sold, Mr. Myrland received a salary or income from appellee for his time and labor, and none of this income was ever commingled with income from the separate property or deposited in any joint account with Mrs. Myrland. Appellant’s salary and the rents, increases and profits from appellee’s properties were never commingled so that a transmutation occurred and it is clear that appellee’s property did not lose its separate identity so as to cast it into community property. Bourne v. Lord, 19 Ariz.App. 228, 506 P.2d 268 (1973) ; Guthrie v. Guthrie, 73 Ariz. 423, 242 P.2d 549 (1952).

That the value of appellee’s properties increased during the years that Mr. Myrland worked thereon also does not serve to change their character from separate to community. Mrs. Myrland devoted as much working time and labor to the operation of her businesses as did Mr. Myrland. Appellant received an income for his services and also received such benefits as housing, food, use of automobiles and vacations. That Mrs. Myrland supplied these benefits from separate property income-does not operate to change the status of the income’s source.

The trial court made a finding of fact that the “community property of the parties consists only of personal property in the form of cash or bank deposits and is in the amount of $4,874.85”, based on community income earned during the period from about July 29, 1952 to August 1, 1953 from the operation of the Outpost. As a conclusion of law the trial court awarded Mr. Myrland the sum of $2,437.43 less $1,500 in funds he had taken from appellee. It did not, however, make a specific finding that the savings accounts and stock in Mrs. Myrland’s name were her sole and separate property. Nevertheless, the purpose of Rule 52(a), to aid the appellate court by affording it an understanding of the ground or basis of the trial court’s decision, was met. Wright and Miller, 9 Federal Practice and Procedure § 2571 (1971).

For the purpose of appellate review there is implied in every judgment findings of fact in addition to express findings made by the court, necessary to sustain the judgment, where such additional findings are reasonably supported by the evidence and are not in conflict with the express findings. King Realty, Inc. v. Grantwood Cemeteries, Inc., 4 Ariz.App. 76, 471 P.2d 710 (1966) ; In re Holman’s Adoption, 80 Ariz. 201, 295 P.2d 372 (1956). The record demonstrates sufficient evidence to support a finding that the bank accounts were appellee’s separate property.

Judgment affirmed.

HATHAWAY, C. J., and KRUCKER, J., concur.

PabKee, J.

C. N. Stroud and Earl Freeman entered into a general partnership to sell groceries under the firm name of Stroud’s Food Center. There is nothing in the agreed statement of facts to indicate or suggest that Freeman’s power and authority as a general partner were in any way restricted or limited by the articles of partnership in respect to the ordinary and legitimate business of the partnership. Certainly, the purchase and sale of bread were ordinary and legitimate business of Stroud’s Food Center during its continuance as a going concern.

Several months prior to February 1956 Stroud advised plaintiff that he personally would not be responsible for any additional bread sold 'by plaintiff to Stroud’s Food Center. After such notice to plaintiff, it from 6 February 1956 to 25 February 1956, at the request of Freeman, sold and delivered bread in the amount of $171.04 to Stroud’s Food Center.

In Johnson v. Bernheim, 76 N.C. 139, this Court said: “A and B are general partners to do some given business; the partnership is, by operation of law, a power to each to 'bind the partnership in any manner legitimate to the business. If one partner go to a third person to buy an article on time for the partnership, the other partner cannot prevent it by writing to the third person not to sell to him on time; or, if one party attempt to buy for cash, the other has no right to require that it shall be on time. And what is true in regard *470to buying is true in regard to selling. What either partner does with a third person is binding on the partnership. It is otherwise where the partnership is not general, but is upon special terms, as that purchases and sales must be with and for cash. There the power to each is special, in regard to all dealings with third persons at least who have notice of the terms.” There is contrary authority: 68 C.J.S., Partnership, pp. 578-579. However, this text of C.J.S. does not mention the effect of the provisions of the Uniform Partnership Act.

The General Assembly of North Carolina in 1941 enacted a Uniform Partnership Act, which became effective 15 March 1941. G.S. Ch. 59, Partnership, Art. 2.

G.S. 59-39 is entitled PARTNER AGENT OF PARTNERSHIP AS TO PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS, and subsection (1) reads: “Every partner is an agent of the partnership for the purpose of its business, and the act of every partner, including the execution in the partnership name of any instrument, for apparently carrying on in the usual way the business of the partnership of which he is a member binds the partnership, unless the partner so acting has in fact no authority to act for the partnership in the particular matter, and the person with whom he is dealing has knowledge of the fact that he has no such authority.” G.S. 59-39(4) states: “No act of a partner in contravention of a restriction on authority shall bind the partnership to persons having knowledge of the restriction.”

G.S. 59-45 provides that “all partners are jointly and severally liable for the acts and obligations of the partnership.”

G.S. 59-48 is captioned RULES DETERMINING RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PARTNERS. Subsection (e) thereof reads: “All partners have equal rights in the management and conduct of the partnership business.” Subsection (h) thereof is as follows: “Any difference arising as to ordinary matters connected with the partnership business may be decided by a majority of the partners; but no act in contravention of any agreement between the partners may be done rightfully without the consent of all the partners.”

Freeman as a general partner with Stroud, with no restrictions on his authority to act within the scope of the partnership business so far as the agreed statement of facts shows, had under the Uniform Partnership Act “equal rights in the management and conduct of the partnership business.” Under G.S. 59-48 (h) Stroud, his co-partner, could not restrict the power and authority of Freeman to buy bread for the partnership as a going concern, for such a purchase was an “ordinary matter connected with the partnership business,” for the purpose of its business and within its scope, because in the very nature of things Stroud was not, and could not be, a majority of the *471partners. Therefore, Freeman’s purchases of bread from plaintiff for Stroud’s Food Center as a going concern bound the partnership and his co-partner Stroud. The quoted provisions of our Uniform Partnership Act, in respect to the particular facts here, are in accord with the principle of law stated in Johnson v. Bernheim, supra; same case 86 N.C. 339.

In Crane on Partnership, 2nd Ed., p. 277, it is said: “In cases of an even division of the partners as to whether or not an act within the scope of the business should be done, of which disagreement a third person has knowledge, it seems that logically no restriction can be placed upon the power to act. The partnership being a going concern, activities within the scope of the business should not be limited, save by the expressed will of the majority deciding a disputed question; half of the members are not a majority.”

Sladen v. Lance, 151 N.C. 492, 66 S.E. 449, is distinguishable. That was a case where the terms of the partnership imposed special restrictions on the power of the partner who made the contract.

At the close of business on 25 February 1956 Stroud and Freeman by agreement dissolved the partnership. By their dissolution agreement all of the partnership assets, including cash on hand, bank deposits and all accounts receivable, with a few exceptions, were assigned to Stroud, who bound himself by such written dissolution agreement to liquidate the firm’s assets and discharge its liabilities. It would seem a fair inference from the agreed statement of facts that the partnership got the benefit of the bread sold and delivered by plaintiff to Stroud’s Food Center, at Freeman’s request, from 6 February 1956 to 25 February 1956. See Guano Co. v. Ball, 201 N.C. 534, 160 S.E. 769. But whether it did or not, Freeman’s acts, as stated above, bound the partnership and Stroud.

The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.

RodmaN, J., dissents.