S-24-0902 Brent Sebade, in his individual capacity and derivatively on behalf of Sebade Brothers (Appellees) v. Rick Sebade and Sarah Sebade (Appellants)
Appeal from the District Court for Thurston County, Judge Zachary L. Blackman
Attorneys: David A. Domina (DominaLaw Group pc llo for Appellants), Joshua C. Dickinson, and Shilee T. Mullin (Spencer Fane, LLP for Appellees) and John O’Brien and Scott C. Sandberg (Pro Hac Vice for Appellees).
Civil: Breach of partnership duties and fraud
Proceedings below: Appellees sued for breach of partnership duties, fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and partnership dissolution. After trial, the district court found in favor of Appellees and ordered Appellants to pay Appellees $8,886,876.51. On its own motion, the Supreme Court ordered this case to be transferred from the docket of the Court of Appeals to its docket.
Issues: Appellants assign the following errors: 1) The trial court erred when it rendered judgment for Appellees against Appellants and denied judgment for Appellants; 2) The trial court erred when it found that commodities trading, used by Rick hedge to all partnership cattle, was outside the partnership’s scope so hedging losses were Rick’s alone and not shared by Brent; 3) The trial court erred when it found Rick had exclusive control over partnership accounting and funds, including cattle inventory records; 4) The trial court erred when it found Sarah had complete control over Brent’s side of cattle feeding ledgers and Brent had no access to Rick’s side; 5) The trial court erred when it found that all incorrect ledger expense entries should be charged against Rick and Sarah; 6) The trial court erred when it found an incorrect amount due for sums associated with Sarah’s cattle and Braxton’s cattle that were not reimbursed; 7) The trial court erred when it found unjust enrichment, an implied contract theory, when actual contracts, and a partnership existed; 8) The trial court erred when it failed to find annual settlements releasing all matters for years prior to 2020 when the brothers separated; 9) The trial court erred when it failed to find Brent owed Rick $75,011.58 to conclude equalization of the brothers’ real estate division agreement; 10) The trial court erred when it failed to find claims for losses occurring more than four years before suit was filed were barred by the statute of limitations; 11) The trial court erred when it found Sarah, an employee, was liable for partnership debt; and 12) The trial court erred when it failed to sustain Appellant’s motion to alter and amend the judgment.