Two Owners, No Operating Agreement: What D.C. Law Does When Partners Split
Two people start a business in the District. They file the certificate of organization online, split ownership fifty-fifty because that feels fair, open a bank account, and get to work. The operating agreement goes on the to-do list, and it stays there.
For three years it does not matter. One owner brings in the clients, the other runs operations, the money is fine, and every disagreement gets settled over lunch.
Then something changes: a buyout offer one owner wants and the other does not, a spouse added to payroll, or a slow slide into two people who no longer speak. Now the most important document in the business is the one that does not exist.
When there is no D.C. LLC operating agreement, or the agreement is silent, the District’s Uniform Limited Liability Company Act fills the gap. It has an answer for nearly everything. Most owners in a split do not like those answers.
The Default Rules You Accepted Without Reading
Three provisions of the D.C. Act do most of the damage in a two-owner split.
Management is equal. Under § 29-804.07, an LLC is member-managed unless the operating agreement expressly says otherwise, and each member has equal rights in managing the company’s activities and affairs. A disagreement about an ordinary-course matter may be decided by a majority of the members. Anything outside the ordinary course needs the consent of all members, and so does amending the operating agreement.
Distributions are split equally, whatever anyone contributed. Under § 29-804.04(a), distributions made before dissolution are made “in equal shares among members and dissociated members.” If you put in $200,000 and your partner put in $20,000 and you never wrote down a different split, the statute ignores the capital account you meant to document.
And no one can force a distribution. Under § 29-804.04(b), a person has a right to a distribution before dissolution only if the company decides to make one, and leaving the company does not entitle anyone to a distribution.
Put those together and the problem takes shape. Control is equal, money out is equal regardless of money in, and there is no way to make the company pay you anything.
Fifty-Fifty Means No Majority
The default rule lets a majority of members decide ordinary disputes. With two equal members who disagree, there is no majority.
The statute has no tiebreaker. The result is not a decision. It is paralysis, and from the inside it looks like this:
The lease renewal sits unsigned because one owner wants the space and the other wants to go remote.
A key hire never happens, or one owner makes it and the other disputes it.
Neither owner will approve a distribution, so profit piles up in an account nobody can touch, while both may still owe tax on their share of it.
The bank requires both signatures, or honors just one, and either way a new fight starts.
Vendors, clients, and employees get conflicting instructions from two people with equal authority.
The business keeps operating the whole time. A deadlocked LLC does not pause; it degrades.
Deadlock also favors whoever benefits from doing nothing. The owner drawing a salary and running daily operations can wait indefinitely. The owner who put in the capital and wants a return cannot. That imbalance drives many of these disputes, and it exists because nobody wrote a tiebreaker into a document.
“Fine, I’ll Just Leave”: The Most Expensive Sentence in This Dispute
This is where owners hurt themselves badly, so precision matters.
You can leave. Under § 29-806.01(a), a person may dissociate as a member at any time, rightfully or wrongfully, by withdrawing by express will. No one can trap you in the company.
But look at what leaving does. Under § 29-806.03, your right to take part in management ends, and you hold whatever interest you had only as a transferee. A transferee has no vote and no management role, and the right to share in distributions that, as covered above, no one can force the company to make. Nothing in the statute requires the company to buy you out. Leaving also does not release you from debts or obligations you took on while you were a member.
It can get worse. Under § 29-806.01(b), withdrawal is wrongful if it breaches an express term of the operating agreement, and it is also wrongful if you withdraw by express will before the company finishes winding up. A wrongful dissociation makes you liable to the company, and potentially to the other member, for the damages it causes (§ 29-806.01(c)).
So for an unhappy 50% owner, walking away means giving up your only leverage, your vote, keeping an interest that pays nothing unless your former partner decides otherwise, possibly owing damages, and leaving your partner in sole control of a company you half own.
Judicial Dissolution: Asking a Court to End It
When there is no agreement and no way through, the remaining route is Superior Court. Under § 29-807.01(a)(4) and (5), a member can ask the court to dissolve the company on two kinds of grounds.
The first is that the company’s conduct of all or substantially all of its activities is unlawful, or that it is not reasonably practicable to carry on its activities and affairs in conformity with the certificate of organization and the operating agreement. That second clause is the deadlock ground. Two owners who cannot agree on anything are, in a real sense, unable to carry on the company’s affairs.
The second is that the managers or members in control have acted, are acting, or will act illegally or fraudulently, or have acted or are acting in a manner that is oppressive and directly harmful to the member bringing the case. This is the claim for a frozen-out owner who has been locked out of the books, removed from payroll, or watching personal expenses run through the company.
A detail people miss: under § 29-807.01(b), in a case brought on that second set of grounds, the court may order a remedy other than dissolution. The court is not limited to ending the company, which opens the door to a buyout or another tailored remedy, often what the aggrieved owner wanted all along.
Be realistic about this path. Dissolution litigation is expensive, slow, and public. It puts the company’s finances into a court record that competitors, lenders, and employees can read, and legal fees come out of the same business both owners are fighting over. It is a real remedy, and sometimes the only one, but it is not a plan.
What an Operating Agreement Cannot Change
An operating agreement can rewrite most of the default rules, which is the whole argument for having one. It cannot rewrite all of them. Section 29-801.07(c) lists the limits. The ones that matter most in a two-owner dispute:
It cannot eliminate the duties of loyalty and care or other fiduciary duties outright, though it can restrict or alter them within the limits the statute allows, if not manifestly unreasonable.
It cannot eliminate the contractual obligation of good faith and fair dealing, though it can set reasonable standards for measuring performance.
It cannot unreasonably restrict members’ rights to information about the company.
It cannot change the grounds for judicial dissolution in § 29-807.01(a)(4) and (5), or the requirement to wind up the company’s affairs.
It cannot take away a member’s power to dissociate, except to require that notice be given in a record.
It cannot relieve anyone of liability for bad faith, willful or intentional misconduct, or a knowing violation of law.
For an owner who feels frozen out, that means you have rights even with no operating agreement at all. Your partner still owes you fiduciary duties and good faith, and still owes you reasonable access to the company’s records. A written demand for records is often the first real step in these disputes, because those rights cannot be drafted away.
Six Clauses That Would Have Prevented This
Every problem above can be solved in advance, in a document that costs a fraction of what one month of the litigation would.
A deadlock breaker. Decide now how a tie gets resolved: a neutral third manager or tiebreaking member, a designated advisor, mediation followed by binding arbitration, or a buy-sell trigger such as a shotgun clause. The mechanism matters less than having one.
A buy-sell provision. Who can buy, on what triggers (death, disability, divorce, deadlock, voluntary exit, breach), and on what terms. This is the clause that turns an impossible fight into a transaction.
A valuation method fixed in advance. “Fair market value” invites competing experts. Use a formula, a named appraiser, or an agreed process, and decide it while both owners still think they might be the buyer.
Capital contributions and profit sharing in writing. If the split is not equal, say so. Otherwise the equal-shares default in § 29-804.04 governs, whatever you intended.
Transfer restrictions. Rights of first refusal and consent requirements, so you never wake up in business with your partner’s former spouse, creditor, or estate.
A dispute resolution clause you have thought through. Arbitration can be faster and private, or it can strip you of remedies you would rather keep. We wrote about that tradeoff in The “Hidden” Courtroom: Understanding Arbitration Clauses and the Battle to Bypass Them.
If you are already in the fight with nothing in writing, the statute still gives you fiduciary duties, good faith, information rights, and a court that can order a remedy short of dissolution. An agreement reached now, while the business still has value, beats one a judge writes for you later.
The Bottom Line
A fifty-fifty LLC with no operating agreement is not a neutral arrangement. It is a set of default rules that split control evenly, split money evenly regardless of what anyone put in, let nobody force a distribution, offer no tiebreaker, and make walking away costly.
The owners who get through a split intact are usually the ones who wrote down the terms while they still liked each other.
The Law Office of Jacobie K. Whitley, PLLC works with D.C. small businesses on operating agreements, buy-sell terms, and owner disputes, both drafting the document that prevents the fight and litigating it when no document exists. If you run a two-owner company on a handshake, an hour now is cheaper than a case later. Call (202) 499-2403.
This article is general information about District of Columbia law, current as of October 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. LLC disputes turn on their specific facts and documents; talk to a lawyer about your situation.
Comments